Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

EAST WORCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL [Lords].

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time. "—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SUPPLIES.

Mr. Levy: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that a notification has been sent to the Elland Dyeing Company, Limited, stating that they will not receive any further supply of coal for the next eight weeks, and as they have not sufficient stocks to last for that period, they will have to close their works, although engaged on Government work and a protected firm; and what action he proposes to take to prevent this situation occurring?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): In order to provide coal urgently needed for public utility undertakings certain collieries were instructed to reduce for a time deliveries to consumers of lower priority. In the particular case in question these instructions were wrongly interpreted to mean complete suspension but the mistake has already been corrected.

Mr. Levy: Does the Minister realise the seriousness of this situation? No in-

formation has been received by this company that the notification was wrongly interpreted. Does the Minister realise that the chaotic situation is casting a very grave reflection upon the Government as as whole, apart from that which is cast upon his Department, which is utterly incompetent?

Mr. Grenfell: I do not know that I am required to argue the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. No doubt the company have had a substantial quantity of coal in stock, and now they will receive coal according to the full measure of their requirements.

Mr. Levy: Have the company been informed that the notification was wrongly interpreted and that they will receive coal, in order to prevent anxiety among their men? Otherwise, the company may have to close down.

Mr. Grenfell: Full supplies are going forward.

Mr. Culverwell: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is satisfied that all public utility undertakings will have enough coal with which to carry on during the next six weeks?

Mr. Grenfell: I cannot give an absolute guarantee that all public utility undertakings can be supplied with coal enough for the next six weeks. The average amount of coal in stock by public utility undertakings, gas, electricity and water, runs to about six weeks' supply at the summer rate of consumption, but these stocks are not evenly distributed and there are a number of them which do not hold a fortnight's stock at the present time. There has been a marked increase in the rate of stocking by public utilities—notably gas works—in the past few weeks.

Mr. Culverwell: Is not the Minister aware that some of these public utilities have only a few days' supply, and will he not take drastic action to save them from having to close down?

Mr. Grenfell: This situation has, unfortunately, been in existence for many months throughout last winter, but no undertaking of any kind has stopped for want of coal since the beginning of the war.

Mr. Shinwell: If the supply of coal is not evenly distributed as my hon. Friend has said, who is responsible for the present situation?

Mr. Grenfell: It was found impossible to convey coal in the desired quantities to the various parts of the country. We are now trying to make good in those places where the stocks are lowest, and I hope to be able to report very shortly that places with only a few weeks' stocks have been raised to a level commensurate with other parts of the country.

Sir William Davison: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered a communication from the town clerk of Chelsea pointing out the likelihood of a serious shortage of coal in Chelsea during the coming winter months by reason of the failure of his Department to supply any coal during recent months, notwithstanding the fact that, at the request of the Ministry, ample storage accommodation approved by them was provided so that coal might be available during the coming winter for persons who had no facilities for storing it themselves; and whether immediate steps will be taken to supply the coal reserve promised to Chelsea over five months ago?

Mr. Grenfell: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the reply to the letter from the town clerk of Chelsea. The delay in increasing stocks in this and other localities is of course due to the general shortage of supplies. A site has been acquired at St. Mark's College, Chelsea, and I hope it will be possible before long to provide coal for it.

Sir W. Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the facts as stated in the Question are vouched for by the town clerk in a recent report, and is he aware that the persons for whom the coal is required are persons who have no storage accommodation in their homes?

Mr. Grenfell: It is because I am so anxious about the people who have no storage accommodation in their homes that I. have made provision for the stocking of 3,000,000 tons on Government account. There are now about one and one-third million tons on Government account, particularly for the people who have no stocking accommodation of their own.

Sir W. Davison: Will some of this come to Chelsea?

Mr. Grenfell: I hope so.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary for Mines when a sufficient supply of house coal will be made available in the Easthampstead and Wokingham rural districts of the county of Berkshire?

Mr. Grenfell: From the information in my possession, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that during recent months Berkshire has not suffered unduly as a result of the reduction in available supplies of house coal. The tonnage held in stock by the merchants in May compares favourably with the corresponding figures for previous months this year, and disposals during the past three months have exceeded the figures for the corresponding period of last year. So far as I am aware, sufficient coal has been available in the Easthampstead and Wokingham districts to meet current requirements. The future position will naturally depend on the results of our continuing efforts to increase production.

Sir A. Knox: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while the coal now being supplied is sufficient for current requirements in the summer months, no reserve is being built up for the winter, which will be infinitely more difficult than last winter, because people who want a lot of coal and have not been able to acquire stocks will then come into the market?

Mr. Grenfell: There are stocks, equal to—and in some cases better than—those of a year ago. We are not, however, satisfied; we want more coal in stock, and if we can get more production, stocks will be correspondingly raised.

Sir John Mellor: Were not these districts formerly supplied by the Tamworth Colliery, and should not "my hon. Friend be now considering the reopening of that colliery?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise on this Question.

PIT-HEAD CANTEENS.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether any additional money is to be made available for the provision of canteens at the various collieries?

Mr. Grenfell: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made on this subject in the House last Thursday. The matter is being pressed, and the necessary legal amendments are being undertaken as soon as possible.

Mr. Smith: Is it intended to get this money? Will my hon. Friend see to this matter and do his best to get the money as quickly as possible?

Mr. Grenfell: I rely very largely upon the committee, the chairman of which is a Member of this House. I am sure the committee is keen to do what it can, and it has the full confidence of my Department.

Mr. Smith: Will the money have to be found by this House?

Mr. Grenfell: It will not.

OUTPUT.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines what co-operation exists between the Coal Production Council and the area committees of the Ministry of Information with regard to the appeals made to mine-workers for a maximum coal output?

Mr. Grenfell: In order to further the appeals for maximum output, every effort is made to maintain close co-operation between the Coal Production Council and its district production committees on the one hand and the Ministry of Information organisation throughout the country on the other, both through the Ministry's headquarters in London and its regional information officers.

Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no co-operation? Is he aware that in Yorkshire the Coal Production Council has been fixing a meeting and that the Minister of Information did the same in the same place and within days of each other, without any consultation? Is that not a waste of organisation power, and ought there not to be the closest co-operation?

POLQUHAIRN COLLIERY, DRONGAN.

Mr. Sloan: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that, on 25th June, 1941, the manager of Polquhairn Colliery, Drongan, contrary to the Essential Work Order, prevented two workmen named Logan and Dungavel from proceeding to their work, thereby causing

them to lose two shifts, because he alleged they were 10 seconds too late; that this allegation is denied; and what action he intends to take against the coal company?

Mr. Grenfell: I have made inquiries and am informed that the circumstances have been considered by the pit production committee, which has endorsed the action of the manager. If my hon. Friend has any further information on the matter, I shall be glad to discuss the question with him.

Mr. Sloan: Will the Minister please answer the Question whether he is aware that a violation has taken place of the Essential Work Order, which gives employers no power whatever to suspend or dismiss men for absenteeism?

Mr. Grenfell: The answer I gave was that I made inquiries of the pit production committee because the committee is responsible for the decision taken.

Mr. Sloan: Is the Minister aware that the only person who has power to deal with the matter is the district officer, who has never been called into question; and is he further aware that the pit production committee was not appointed by the men at that colliery?

Mr. Grenfell: I hope my hon. Friend will give me the facts privately, and I will see what I can do. I did not know those things at all.

Mr. Sloan: Very good, I will do so.

BONUS ATTENDANCE PAYMENT.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the resolution carried at the Miners' Conference last week protesting at the conditions applying to the bonus attendance payment; and what steps his Department are taking on this question so as to bring about a more satisfactory settlement?

Mr. Grenfell: I am aware of the resolution calling upon the Executive Committee of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain to take this question up with representatives of the colliery owners; I understand that a meeting between the parties for this purpose has been arranged.

Mr. Tinker: Will the Minister not use his good influence to impress upon coal-owners that they should not be too hard? Is he aware there is some feeling among


the miners at what is happening and that if it could be removed, a better spirit would prevail?

Mr. Grenfell: I would like to see conciliation adopted by both sides in order that a better spirit should prevail and improved production result.

Mr. James Griffiths: Will the Minister make new efforts in this matter?

Mr. Grenfell: I hope it will be discussed at the next meeting.

Mr. McGovern: Has not the Mine-workers' Federation agreed about this matter?

MINE ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the number of accidents at the coal face being on the increase in proportion to the number of men employed there; and whether he will cause a special investigation to be made to find out whether it is due to the excessive noise caused through machinery which prevents the miner from sensing the danger which he would otherwise do?

Mr. Grenfell: I have to state with regret that the rate of fatal accidents at the coal face had gone up since the war. I have been in consultation with the inspectors on a number of occasions and am unable to satisfy myself that we have found an explanation of the cause of increase. There are a number of factors operating with greater effect in war time which contribute to the higher number of deaths. A similar result was observed in 1914–1918. I am proceeding with close investigations and will give the House fuller information when we return after the Recess.

UN WORKED PROFITABLE SEAMS.

Mr. Oliver: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in some mines the more profitable seams are not now being worked in favour of the less profitable seams not normally in production, resulting in a loss of output; and whether he can make any statement on the matter?

Mr. Grenfell: I am not aware of the practice referred to by the hon. Member. If he has actual cases in mind, I shall be glad to have particulars, in order that inquiries may be made.

Mr. Oliver: What power exists to deal with cases of this kind?

Mr. Grenfell: There are very extensive powers. If my hon. Friend can prove that an attempt was made to limit the production of coal in war-time, I have power enough to deal with the matter.

Mr. Oliver: I will see that the Minister has the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL RATIONING.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary for Petroleum whether he will give the reasons why it is necessary to run motor boats and motor cars in order that they shall be ready for use if and when required for work of national importance?

The Secretary for Petroleum (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): As I informed the hon. Member on 22nd June, there are a number of considerations of which the point he refers to is one. Unless boats and cars are maintained in service, it cannot be expected that they should be in readiness for immediate use should they be needed for work of national importance.

Sir W. Smithers: While appreciating to the full the wonderful service given at Dunkirk and elsewhere by these boats, would it not be quite sufficient if motor cars and motor boats which are not absolutely necessary were turned over for 10 or 15 minutes a week and thus kept in good running order?

Commander Sir Archibald South by: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the people who use these motor cars and motor boats are officers and men from the Forces, home on leave and getting a little very much needed relaxation?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COTTON TEXTILE EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES.

Mr. Stokes: asked the President of the Board of Trade, on what grounds it has been decided to be necessary to continue the export of cotton goods and textiles to the United States of America where there is already a sufficiency of clothing?

Mr. Harcourt Johnstone (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): Our need for dollars is very great, and it is essential


that we should make the fullest use we can of the export capacity which we still possess, without interfering with essential home requirements.

Mr. Stokes: Will the hon. Gentleman say how he reconciles this statement with President Roosevelt's advice to his countrymen to "cut out the dollar sign and forget the financial nonsense," and will he also say why he has considered it advisable to export clothing from this country, where we have too little, to America, where they have too much?

Mr. Johnstone: I do not think those points call for a reply. Whatever my hon. Friend may say, the Treasury's need for dollars is still very great, and if the United States wish to buy clothes which we can manufacture and which are superfluous to our bare requirements, there is no reason why they should not be exported.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not the case that we are producing manufactured goods out of raw materials supplied by the United States of America? Is that why?

Mr. Johnstone: No, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we not producing cotton goods from American cotton?

CLOTHES RATIONING.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a boy's school outfit requires 200 coupons which, in most cases, it is quite impossible to provide; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this anomaly?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): I would refer the hon. Member to the Reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Pearson) on 18th June.

Mr. Edwards: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman not say what steps he will take to deal with this? The Answer referred to does not state what steps are being taken.

Captain Waterhouse: It is hoped that schools will modify their, in many cases, unreasonable requirements to bring them into line with present possibilities.

Mr. Edwards: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not realise that whatever modifications are made, there will still be a shortage of coupons for children going to school?

Captain Waterhouse: Already small children get an advantage in the list which has been issued, and there will be special provision made for growing children, but we do not contemplate provision for large school outfits.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what children are not growing?

Mr. Henry Strauss: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has yet been arrived at with regard to an extra issue of clothing coupons to expectant mothers to meet their special needs for knitting wool and other materials?

Captain Waterhouse: Yes, Sir. The Board of Trade, in consultation with the Ministry of Health, the Scottish Department of Health and the Northern Ireland Ministry of Home Affairs have secured the co-operation of the local authorities for maternity and child welfare in issuing a special allowance of 50 coupons to expectant mothers. The scheme will come into force on 5th August, and full details will be published in the Press to-morrow.

EXPORT TRADE.

Mr. Hannah: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied with the state of our export trade, especially in view of markets after the war?

Mr. Johnstone: My right hon. Friend is never satisfied with the state of our export trade, and he is very conscious that war conditions make it impossible to cultivate our overseas markets as much as we should wish. But my hon. Friend can be assured that the considerations he mentions are being kept in mind.

Mr. Hannah: Does the Government realise the supreme, enormous, colossal and overwhelming need of looking after our export trade, especially when peace is restored?

WINDOW AND PLATE GLASS INDUSTRY.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he


is planning for the establishment of the window and plate glass industry on a large scale so that this country may not be dependent on foreign imports to repair damage after the war, and to supply our own needs and give employment?

Captain Waterhouse: I can assure my hon. Friend that the importance of this industry is not being overlooked.

Mr. Samuel: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there might be a certain amount of broken glass in Germany?

SMALL TRADERS.

Mr. Doland: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in view of the questionnaire issued by the committee set up by the Board of Trade, particularly in view of one of the 24 questions which asks trade associations if they consider that steps should be taken to reduce the number of shops, it is the policy of the Government to endeavour to eliminate a large number of small shops in London and the country either by voluntary or compulsory means;
(2) whether he is aware that owing primarily to the incidence of war 941 shops are empty in the borough of Wandsworth, compared with 308 as at March, 1939; and will he bear in mind this wholesale closing of small businesses all over the country causing great hardship to thousands of persons, when considering legislation regarding the retail trading community?

Captain Waterhouse: The Board of Trade are aware that largely owing to war circumstances a number of shops have had to close, and that hardship has in some cases inevitably resulted. The Retail Trade Committee, who drew up the questionnaire to which my hon. Friend refers, was set up to examine the numerous and complex problems confronting retail traders, and I cannot anticipate their findings. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that the interests of the small shopkeeper have not been, and will not be, overlooked, and I would refer him to the statement made on 13th May when the appointment of this Committee was announced.

TOBACCO IMPORTS.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether

he will furnish figures, comparable to those given to illustrate the saving in shipping space achievable by eating less or different kinds of bread, showing how much shipping space could be saved for every 10 per cent. reduction in the imports of tobacco generally and of American tobacco in particular?

Captain Waterhouse: Publication of details relating to trade statistics has been suspended since the outbreak of hostilities. I cannot therefore give a figure which would indicate the rate of import of any commodity.

Miss Rathbone: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that present propaganda about tobacco is most unsatisfactory, that the appeal to the tobacco consumers to reduce their consumption for a few weeks only, by one-fifth only, is unsatisfactory, first, because patriotic smokers have already reduced their consumption by far more than one-fifth and, secondly, that they would be ready to reduce it far more than that if they had reason to suppose it to be necessary.—[Interruption.]—May I not ask for a reply?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady is giving the answer to her own Question.

Miss Rathbone: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

BOARD OF TRADE (STAFF).

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the urgent call of the Secretary of State for War and other Ministers for recruits for war services, he will issue an instruction to his Department that eligible men and women whose age groups have been or are being called up shall not be taken into or kept in employment in rationing or other departmental activities unless they are especially certified by him to be irreplaceable?

Captain Waterhouse: The retention of permanent staff and the recruitment and retention of the temporary staff of the Board of Trade are in compliance with the conditions prescribed in the Schedule of Reserved Occupations and Protected


Work. Requests for deferment of calling-up have only been made for certain temporary officers with professional or other specialist qualifications essential for their work who cannot be replaced. This condition will continue to be strictly observed.

Sir P. Hurd: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is considerable resentment among those who have been called up, often at great personal loss, that there should be retained in Departments like his men and women who could easily be replaced if the effort were made?

Captain Waterhouse: I can assure the hon. Member that we do not retain people who could easily be replaced—ever.

An Hon. Member: What about the President of the Board?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of the staffs engaged on work in Bournemouth connected with the clothes rationing, woven textiles, miscellaneous trades orders, and concentration of production; what proportion is composed of permanent civil servants; and whether he is satisfied that the Department there is working smoothly and with efficiency?

Captain Waterhouse: The total number of staff of all grades, including minor common services staff, employed in the Board of Trade offices at Bournemouth on these duties is 943 of whom 208 or 22 per cent. are permanent civil servants. There are many problems inherent in these new duties, and I am satisfied that the Department is doing its utmost to overcome the initial difficulties.

Mr. Hall: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the public, at any rate, are not satisfied that these four hotels are being properly run and that a very large number of complaints are made that the whole thing appears to be in a most chaotic condition? Would the President of the Board of Trade have inquiry made?

Captain Waterhouse: I do not think there is a case for inquiry at all. We are well aware of the difficulties which are inherent in the position. I did not say I thought the position was perfectly satis-

factory; I did say I thought that an improvement was taking place and that, given a chance, this matter would be got right.

KENNET COMMITTEE.

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing the large number of eligible men and women whose age groups have been called up who are being retained in the various Departments of the Government, he will request the Kennet Committee to consider the feasibility of calling up all these men and women unless they are certified by the Minister concerned to be irreplaceable in the Department?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, answer this Question and No. 59 together.

Sir P. Hurd: Question No. 59 has been deferred.

Captain Crookshank: The answer is the same, anyhow. The Kennet Committee yesterday submitted an interim report to my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour. Perhaps my hon. Friend would wait until my right hon. Friends have had an opportunity of considering it.

Sir P. Hurd: How long does my right hon. and gallant Friend think it will be before we see this interim report?

Captain Crookshank: If my hon. Friend wants to know whether it will be published, I should like to have notice of that Question. I should not think it would.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

PURCHASE TAX (MINERS' LAMPS).

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider, at an early date, removal or the reduction of the Purchase Tax on acetylene lamps used in coalmining?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) on 3rd December last.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the Chancellor realise that the present position is, that lamps provided by a colliery company are free of tax, whereas lamps acquired by the men themselves are subject to tax, and will he take steps to remove that anomaly and see that such lamps are free of tax?

Sir K. Wood: I would like to discuss that with the hon. Member. I dare say he knows the difficulty there is in restricting the concession to the types used in the industry.

Sir Herbert Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the Purchase Tax is the main element in the spiral?

ELECTRICITY CHARGES.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the cost of electric power has been increased by 40 per cent. due to increases in cost of coal; that the effect of this is to inflate the cost of nearly every commodity purchased by the Government; and at what date he proposes to carry out his undertaking to subsidise rising costs of coal-power, &c, in order to stabilise prices and wages?

Sir K. Wood: My noble Friend the Minister of War Transport is not aware of any general increase to the extent indicated, but he will ask the Electricity Commissioners to look into any particular cases which my hon. Friend has in mind. Among the measures taken in relation to the charges of public utility undertakings, the Commissioners have informed all electricity undertakers that no further increases in electricity charges, other than increases already announced, should be made without the undertakers first submitting their proposals to the Commissioners with necessary supporting data so that the Minister may have an opportunity of considering the position.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (CHARGES).

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Ministry of War Transport has sanctioned an increase of 60 per cent. in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board's town dues and dock rates as from 2nd July; and, as this is in conflict with the policy of the Government, what steps he is taking to prevent a consequent increase in the cost of many Government purchases?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. My noble Friend consulted me before agreeing to the increased charges referred to. The matter was fully examined in relation to the policy which I announced in my Budget speech, and in view of the extent to which essential goods are now imported on Government account, I am satisfied that the increased charges will not be reflected in the prices of such goods to the consumer. There is, therefore, no conflict with the policy of the Government.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Chancellor not aware that when he puts up the prices of these goods he must put up the cost of goods to the Government? Is it not impossible to stabilise prices if this method of increasing prices of all these commodities is continued?

Sir K. Wood: That is a general matter. I have confined myself to the Reply I have given, which deals with a specific case.

ADVERTISEMENT POSTERS.

Captain John Dugdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the adverse effect that they have upon the National Savings Campaign, he will take steps to prohibit, for the duration of the war, the display of advertisements upon hoardings throughout the country calling upon people to spend money upon the purchase of proprietary articles?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. Private advertising upon hoardings is already subject to very severe and increasing restrictions by the Paper Controller and in other ways, and I am satisfied that the National Savings Campaign will not be adversely affected by leaving the position as it is.

Captain Dugdale: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it unfortunate that posters encouraging people to spend should be placed side by side with the posters of his Department which encourage people to save?

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC WARFARE.

SPAIN (SUPPLY SHIPS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether, in view of the recent attack on the democracies made by General Franco, it is proposed


to continue to permit the passage of supply ships through the British blockade to Spain?

The Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dalton): I would remind my hon. Friend of the Reply which he received on Thursday last from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. My right hon. Friend referred to my statement of 30th July, 1940, when I laid it down that it was not the policy of His Majesty's Government to extend the blockade to neutral countries so long as supplies could reach these countries without the risk of falling into the hands of the enemy, that we were prepared to grant navicerts on such a scale as to allow imports adequate for domestic consumption, and, further, that it was the policy of His Majesty's Government not merely to allow such supplies to pass through our controls, but also to assist neutral countries to obtain them. As regards General Franco's speech on 17th July, my right hon. Friend pointed out that this speech displayed complete misunderstanding of the general war situation, and also of British economic policy towards Spain. He added that this speech made it appear that General Franco did not desire further economic assistance for his country and that, if this were so, His Majesty's Government would be unable to proceed with their plans, and that their future policy would depend on the actions and attitude of the Spanish Government.

Mr. Mander: Does that mean that, in the meantime, shipments are held up, that nothing further will be allowed to go through until we are satisfied that General Franco does not mean what he says?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. No further decision has been taken in that sense. We are waiting for elucidation of the intentions of the Spanish Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the ships despatched by the U.S.A., the "Scheherezade," actually discharged a cargo at Dakar, which is under German control?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, but Dakar is not in Spain.

Mr. Shinwell: That is worse.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend continue to exercise the utmost

vigilance in order that nothing will reach Spain which would increase General Franco's power to go to war against us?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Garro Jones: As General Franco does not appear to understand the position and intentions of the British Government, and the British Government do not appear to understand the intentions, of General Franco—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

CONTROL OF EXPORTS (GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare to what extent progress has been made as between Great Britain and the United States of America in producing an agreed black list of traders?

Mr. Dalton: By a proclamation dated 17th July, President Roosevelt has authorised the preparation of a Proclaimed List similar to our own Statutory List. This Proclaimed List is to include persons who are believed to be engaged in activities helpful to Germany or Italy, and persons to whom the exportation of any article or material exported from the United States is deemed to be detrimental to the interests of national defence. Any person whose name appears on the list is to be treated as though he were a national of Germany or Italy, and is to be debarred from obtaining, except under special licence, United States products which are subject to export control. In pursuance of this proclamation the United States Government has now issued a list of 1,834 persons in Latin America. The majority of these also appear on our own Statutory List. I am consulting the United States Government on the coordination of the two lists. This new departure will be of the greatest value to us in waging economic warfare, and I am sure the House would wish to join with me in welcoming this striking act of American co-operation.

Mr. Mander: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether joint consideration is now being given to the question of Japanese enemy trade?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance that Italian prisoners of war, including the Duke of Aosta and other generals, are being treated strictly in accordance with international regulations and that no special facilities are being provided other than those available for German prisoners?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Sandys): Yes, Sir. There are of course, minor differences of treatment between German and Italian prisoners. But these depend on the privileges allowed to our prisoners in Germany and Italy.

Mr. Mander: Can the hon. Gentleman say why it is that Italian officers are being released for the purpose of attending social functions in Cairo, and will he make arrangements that these shall cease forthwith?

Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Gentleman will give me particulars of these festivities, I will look into the matter.

Captain McEwen: Is my hon. Friend not aware that there is a great deal of difference in the treatment of our prisoners of war by Germany and Italy?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN PRISONERS' PUBLICATION.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a book is being published in America entitled, "I was a Nazi Flyer," written by a German prisoner of war who baled out in this country and was sent to Canada; that this book sets out the faith of the Nazi soldier whether permission was given for this book to be published; and whether prisoners of war, under any circumstances, are entitled to have their writings published?

Mr. Sandys: The release for publication of a book written by a prisoner of war is a matter for decision by the military authorities under whose care he is detained. I have no information regarding the particular case to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am having inquiries made from the Canadian authorities.

Mr. Strauss: Does that mean that when a British prisoner of war is sent to Canada, a book can be published without the permission of the British authorities,

dealing with something which he has written?

Mr. Sandys: I have replied that I do not know anything about this particular case and that I am looking into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

LEAVE.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to dissatisfaction among soldiers on home service that their seven days' leave every three months, if exigencies permit, is so often found to be impracticable; and will he look into the whole matter to be sure that leave is never withheld where it can possibly be granted?

Mr. Sandys: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) on 3rd July, of which I am sending him a copy. Leave allotments are based on the operational requirement that the strength of units should not normally be allowed to fall below establishment by more than ten per cent. at any time. While I am aware that courses, special duties and training requirements may sometimes lead to the postponement of leave, I am satisfied that cases in which soldiers at home are unable to obtain four periods of seven days' leave in the year are exceptional.

Mr. Bellenger: Would the hon. Gentleman look more closely into that, as I can assure him that there is a considerable discrepancy between different units in the granting of these leaves? It is not by any means universal for four leaves within any year to be given.

Mr. Sandys: If the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars of any hardship cases, I will look into them.

TOBACCO ISSUE, MALAYA.

Sir A. Southby: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether the Imperial troops stationed in Malaya are now being issued with tobacco and matches on the field service scale; and on what date was such issue approved, observing, that for some time issues of tobacco at the field service rate have been made to men serving in Iceland and the Orkney and Shetland Islands but not to mention Malaya?

Mr. Sandys: The free issue of tobacco and matches is normally limited to troops engaged in active operations, but it has also been extended to certain areas where troops are far removed from the normal sources of supply. The General Officer Commanding, Malaya, recently drew attention to the difficulties experienced in this respect by units on the Malayan mainland. Approval was accordingly given on 5th July last for the free issue of tobacco and matches to these troops.

Sir A. Southby: Can my hon. Friend say whether the delay in giving this free issue to the men in Malaya was due to the War Office or to the parsimonious action of the Treasury?

Mr. Sandys: Cases are dealt with as they arise.

Sir A. Southby: Was that application made for this issue some time ago, and was there any delay in giving it?

Mr. Sandys: I understand the request was made by the General Officer Commanding, Malaya, quite recently.

AEROPLANES UNDER ARMY CONTROL.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether the Army is now furnished with sufficient appropriate aeroplanes to make it independent of the Royal Air Force in effecting reconnaissance and similar work?

Mr. Sandys: My hon. Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. It is not proposed to set up a separate air force for the Army. All squadrons engaged on reconnaissance and similar work for the Army continue to belong to the Royal Air Force. Certain of these squadrons, however, which are specially equipped and trained for Army needs, are under the operational control of the Army; and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated on 10th June, it is the intention to increase considerably the number of aeroplanes under Army control.

Mr. Adams: When is, it anticipated that this last-mentioned desire will be fulfilled?

Mr. Sandys: It is going on all the time.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is it still the case that no Army unit lower than a division can make a direct request to the Air Force for

co-operative support, as opposed to the German Army system, under which platoons may make direct requests for aircraft?

Mr. Sandys: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Sir William Wayland: asked the Secretary of State for War why, when a soldier's wife enters a rate-aided institution, the dependants' allowance is immediately stopped, although the soldier continues to receive the pay of a married man; and why the allowance is not paid to the local authority towards the maintenance costs?

Mr. Sandys: Family allowance is issued in order to assist a soldier in meeting the expense of maintaining and accommodating his family. If a soldier's wife without children enters a rate-aided institution, her allowance is withheld. At the same time, the regimental paymaster authorizes the issue of full pay to the soldier, unless he wishes a voluntary allotment to be paid to his wife. As regards the second part of the Question, it would be contrary to present policy for any payment to be made from Army funds to the local authority in such cases.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Is it not the case that all these rate-aided institutions make a charge to the inmates where they believe that the charge can be met? Is that too deep for the Minister to answer?

ROAD ACCIDENTS (EMERGENCY TREATMENT).

Sir W. Wayland: asked the Secretary of State for War what responsibility does the War Office accept for reimbursing a hospital for the cost of a patient injured by an Army vehicle, even though the cause of the accident may have been purely accidental or due to contributory negligence on the part of the injured person, or when the cause of the accident is in dispute?

Mr. Sandys: When a person is afforded emergency treatment as the result of an accident arising out of the use of a War Department vehicle on duty on a road, claims are accepted against Army funds for the cost of such treatment at the rates and in the circumstances specified in Section 16 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, notwithstanding that that part of the


Act does not apply to the Crown. Refund of other hospital expenses is considered in connection with any claim to compensation arising out of the accident. In general, the War Office accepts liability in respect of such expenses to the extent to which a private employer would be liable in similar circumstances.

Sir W. Wayland: Is the hon. Member aware that in many cases the district paymaster has refused to recognise claims made by hospitals when an accident was not absolutely due to the Army driver, or where it could not be attributed either to one side or the other, and that in such cases compensation has often been refused?

Mr. Sandys: The payments to be made are laid down quite clearly in Section 16 of the Road Traffic Act. Those payments are made.

CAMOUFLAGE.

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that one of the few recognised authorities in the science of camouflage is now in His Majesty's service; whether he is satisfied that he has been given an official position commensurate with his position in this highly-specialised branch of science; and what is his official designation and where are his headquarters?

Mr. Sandys: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to an authority on the biological aspect of camouflage about whom he has written to my right hon. and gallant Friend. This gentleman holds a commission in the Royal Engineers. He is now serving as a camouflage officer, and holds a staff appointment in that capacity at General Headquarters, Middle East. I am satisfied that his present position is such as to provide full scope for the exercise of his abilities and experience.

Sir J. Graham Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that valuable knowledge was accumulated during the last war in relation to the Kensington Gardens scheme of camouflage; that material on which it was founded was placed in store at a place of which he has been informed; whether such material is still to the fore; and whether care has been taken to make it freely accessible to camouflage officers during the present war.

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir. All data, records and materials of the Kensington Gardens Camouflage School of the last war have been carefully examined, and are at the disposal of present-day camouflage officers through the medium of the Army Camouflage Training and Development Centre.

Mr. Hannah: Are the Government fully convinced that our camouflage cannot be improved?

Mr. Sandys: It is being improved all the time.

MILITIA CAMPS (COST).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Militia camps were included in the actual expenditure of £22,750,000; and how many were allowed for in the original estimate of £20,000,000?

Mr. Sandys: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 28th May.

Mr. Stokes: That answer gave no information at all. Will the hon. Member state what percentage of the camps it was intended to construct were constructed? Unless this is stated, the answer makes no sense at all.

Mr. Sandys: The answer to which I referred the hon. Member was given to a Question of his which was almost identical with the one that he asked to-day. He had a very full reply, to which I have nothing to add.

COURTS-MARTIAL.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for War, seeing that it is laid down for courts-martial, in Rules of Procedure 87 (D), that the friend of the accused may advise the accused on all points and suggest the questions to be put to the witnesses, but cannot examine or cross-examine the witnesses or address the court, under what circumstances the friend may not be present in court throughout the proceedings?

Mr. Sandys: The friend of an accused is entitled to be present in court at all times during which the accused himself is before the court and desires his friend to be present.

Mr. Wilson: If I send the hon. Member cases where this right has been refused, will he look into them?

Mr. Sandys: Certainly, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HILL SHEEP FARMING.

Mr. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, (1) whether he is satisfied that the hill sheep industry is receiving fair prices for its wool and mutton compulsorily sold to the Government; and whether the prices are the subject of negotiation with the industry or are they arbitrarily fixed by the Government;
(2)the average results of his inspection of current trading and profit and loss accounts and balance sheets of typical hill farms in the various districts, after allowing the working farmer the wage of the lowest-paid agricultural labourer;
(3) whether he is aware that, as a result of the severe winter and spring, mortality among ewes and lambs was high; and what steps he is taking to meet the situation, which will become worse within the next few weeks, when many hill farmers will be compelled to sell breeding stock to meet current expenditure?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): Wool prices have already been increased by 15 per cent. over last year's figures, and it is hoped that a statement will be made shortly on mutton prices. While the latest available hill farmers' accounts show an improvement for the 1940 season as against the previous season, I am aware that additional difficulties and financial hardships have resulted from the prolonged winter of 1940–41 and the resulting loss of lambs. The Government are fully alive to the position and have already given an undertaking to provide, if necessary, special assistance.

Mr. Robertson: Is it not quite wrong that this great industry should be singled out in this way? Is it not a fact that the figures for the two years of Government purchase show a net loss on all the farms taken out by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: As the hon. Member knows, it is exceedingly difficult to discuss

this complicated matter by way of question and answer. There will be an opportunity on the Scottish Estimates at the next Sitting, when I hope to make a fuller statement.

SCHOOL CHILDREN (MEALS).

Mrs. Hardie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the conclusions arrived at by the Ministry of Food as to the necessary ingredients of a balanced meal; and whether he will confer with that Ministry with a view to providing such a meal to every child at school from September throughout the winter?

Mr. Johnston: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the Question, it is the duty of education authorities to provide meals for all necessitous school children, and I have encouraged authorities to extend this service to all other school children on payment of the bare cost of the food. At present, some 50,000 school children in Scotland are obtaining a well balanced meal daily; and this number, I hope, will be steadily increased.

Mrs. Hardie: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, will he put more pressure on local authorities to provide these meals for necessitous children, in view of the fact that it is practically impossible for the mothers to get the food in the shops, even if they have the money?

Mr. Johnston: I quite agree. We are taking every step we can to encourage the local authorities. There are difficulties about cooking equipment and so on, but we hope that these are being rapidly overcome.

NUTRITION (WORKERS).

Mr. Sloan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the nutrition of certain classes of workers in Scotland is inadequate, and compares unfavourably with the nutrition standards provided for other classes of workers; and whether he will take steps to provide adequate and equal nutrition for all workers?

Mr. Johnston: The policy of the Government has been, and is, to provide adequate nutrition for all classes of workers. If, as I assume, my hon. Friend has in mind any disparity in the provision of food canteens, and especially at the coal pits, in Scotland, I can assure him that the matter is receiving urgent attention.

Mr. Sloan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the possibility of procuring nutritious food for miners in Scotland is almost nil, that miners' wives are completely at their wits' end, and that they are taking long journeys to the towns only to find short rations there? Will he see that the canteen system is spread as far as possible in Scotland?

Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend the Minister of Mines has the subject very urgently under review. In Scotland we are exceptionally badly off. At present, we have only two canteens in active operation.

HIGHLAND FOLK MUSEUM.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether he has now taken the promised steps to prevent the dispersal of the Highland Folk Museum?

Mr. Johnston: The possible alternative accommodation to which I referred in my Answer of 15th July is being examined by the Inverness County Council. Meantime, I have asked them not to enter upon the museum premises.

Mr. Hannah: Is not that a most satisfactory answer?

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the increasing resentment which is felt among Scottish public works contractors at the growing tendency of English firms to obtain contracts for work in Scotland; whether he is further aware that resident engineers of English main contractors are enabled to appoint direct sub-contractors from England for work which can be more readily carried out by Scottish contractors in Scotland; and whether he will consult with the Government Departments concerned with a view to safeguarding the interests of Scottish contractors in future?

Mr. Johnston: While I have received some general representations in the sense of the hon. Member's Question, I have no specific evidence of any case in which the public interest has been prejudiced, or contracts given out in any manner disadvantageous to Scottish contractors or workmen. If any evidence of that nature is available, I shall be glad to consider it with a view to drawing the attention of the appropriate authority to the matter.

Mr. McKinlay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that plants belonging to Scottish contractors have been requisitioned and handed over to English contractors, who have no plant of their own?

Mr. Johnston: That is another question. If hon. Members had any evidence of that kind of thing, I should be glad to have it.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend get into touch with the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade and see the particulars of these contracts?

Mr. Johnston: I would prefer that a specific case should be given me.

Mr. Sloan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that English contractors do not come up to standard and that local contractors have to carry out the work?

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COMMISSIONER, AUSTRALIA (STATEMENT).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a recent speech made by the British High Commissioner in Australia derogatory to the political system of our Russian Ally; and whether, as such statements by persons in authority may injure our joint war effort, he has taken steps to ensure that no further speeches of this kind are made?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has seen Press reports of a statement alleged to have been made by the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Australia. He has ascertained from him that the facts of the case are as follow. In reply to questions about Communism put to the High Commissioner at a Press conference, he denied the prevalence of Communism in this country and stated that Communism was generally unpopular here. He did not, in his reply, use the expression "the Russian system," as has been wrongly reported. Subsequently, in reply to further Press inquiries, he stated that his attitude towards Russia was identical with that recently expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is sure that this is the fact. It is obvious from the above that the High Commissioner has been completely misreported or misrepresented, and he has the full confidence and approval of the Government.

Mr. Adams: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Hughes, the Australian Naval Minister, condemned his speech and that several thousand trade unionists in Australia demanded the recall of our High Commissioner?

Mr. Attlee: I have given my hon. Friend the facts.

Mr. Maxton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is not the only Member of this House in foreign parts who has made objectionable statements? There ought to be some method of controlling our representatives abroad.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Prime Minister what Minister in this House will answer Questions addressed to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he is abroad?

Mr. Attlee: In the absence of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, such Questions will be answered in the future, as they have been in the past, by the Attorney-General.

Sir H. Williams: Will the Attorney-General answer Questions in respect of duties performed overseas by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?

Mr. Attlee: It depends upon the nature of the Question. If it was one relating to the general high policy of the Government, it would have to be put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Sir H. Williams: Supposing it is a Question to be put down with reference to something that the Chancellor of the Duchy is doing overseas, to whom must it be addressed?

Mr. Attlee: I have already replied to the hon. Member on that point. If the hon. Member is ingenious enough to put a Question with reference to the business of the Chancellor, it will be answered by the Attorney-General, but any question of general policy will have to be put down to the Prime Minister.

Sir Irving Albery: Is it not perfectly obvious that at the present time the right hon. Gentleman cannot perform the duties of Chancellor of the Duchy?

Mr. Attlee: With regard to the performance of the functions of the Chancellor of the Duchy abroad, that has already been answered.

Mr. Maxton: Does my right hon. Friend think there will be any harm in the affairs of the Chancellor of the Duchy being managed by somebody other than himself?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL DUTIES.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether the duties undertaken by Lord Beaverbrook as Minister of State have been transferred to another Member of the War Cabinet?

Mr. Attlee: As stated in the public announcement issued on 29th June, the appointment of my Noble Friend Lord Beaverbrook as Minister of Supply brought to an end the special arrangements whereby the Minister of State acted as Deputy Chairman of the Defence Committee (Supply) and as Referee on priority questions. The announcement also stated that these questions would in future be handled within the organisation of the Office of the Minister of Defence or of the Production Executive, of which latter my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour would continue as Chairman.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SURVEY (BLIND PERSONS).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether consideration will be given to the position of blind per sons by the committee engaged upon a survey of social services?

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): Yes, Sir. The blind are specifically covered in the Committee's preliminary plan of work.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING.

Mr. Henry Strauss: asked the Minister without Portfolio what steps the Government have taken to ensure that the administration of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, shall proceed in conformity with long-term planning policy; and whether it was of set purpose or inadvertently that the Government omitted this Statute from their state-


ment of 17th July, 1941, setting out the purpose and terms of reference of the Council of Ministers under the chairmanship of the Right Honourable Lord Reith?

Mr. Greenwood: In settling the composition and terms of reference of the Council of Ministers under the chairmanship of my noble Friend, the Government have, of course, taken into account the fact that the Town and Country Planning Act is not the only statute which relates to planning. It is, however, by far the most comprehensive Statute in this field, and its administration is already closely co-ordinated with the administration of other Acts relating to planning. The function of the Council of Ministers is to bring my noble Friend into closer association with the current administration of the main body of the planning law, and this function is accurately reflected in the Council's composition and terms of reference. My noble Friend will, however, remain in close touch with the administration of all other relevant enactments.

Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman of the opinion that the administration of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, in the past has been consistent with good planning? Is that same system to be allowed to continue?

Mr. Greenwood: I would like the hon. Gentleman to await, if he would, the new legislation on this matter, which will shortly be before the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MUSEUM READING ROOM (RE-OPENING).

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the re-opening of the reading room of the British Museum may be expected?

Captain Crookshank: It is hoped to resume the public service of the reading room about the end of October.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROPAGANDA BROADCASTS TO CONTINENT.

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Information whether he will request the British Broadcasting Corporation to accentuate in broadcasts to Germany and the Continent the efforts, in 1938 and 1939, of the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain

for peace and his striving to secure the settlement of international differences by conciliation rather than by force?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): When dealing with the question of responsibility for the war, it is clearly desirable to draw attention to the efforts of His Majesty's Government to preserve peace in Europe. But as the hon. Member will realise it is equally important to lay emphasis on the faithless and aggressive character of German policy during the pre-war years.

Sir W. Davison: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it would be very undesirable at the present time to put forward the suggestion contained in the Question, which might cause it to be generally considered that we were longing for peace on Hitler's terms?

Mr. Thurtle: I am not in a position to add to my Answer, except to say that it is the view of the Government that His Majesty's Government's efforts to preserve peace are best shown against the background of Hitler's perfidy and perjury.

Mr. Lambert: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the object of my Question is to show that the entire responsibility for the horrors now existing in Europe rests on Hitler and his associates?

Mr. Thurtle: The Government are fully aware of that fact, and are anxious to see that it is brought out in all propaganda.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR TRANSPORT AUXILIARY.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production on what exact basis or calculation the Air Transport Auxiliary Service is paid for each aircraft delivered to the Royal Air Force?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Montague): The Air Transport Auxiliary has no revenue. The cost of the organisation falls on the Vote of the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Payment is not made on the basis of aircraft delivered.

Mr. Garro Jones: Does the cost of that organisation include any interest paid for the shares of British Airways on their fixed interest-bearing securities?

Mr. Montague: The cost of the Air Transport Auxiliary is borne on the Vote, and if my hon. Friend has any questions to put concerning higher policy, perhaps he will be good enough to raise them on the appropriate Vote.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSONAL INJURIES (CIVILIANS) SCHEME.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. B.Morrey, of 33, Penkville Street, Stoke-on-Trent, received injuries of a permanent character in an air-raid on 19th November, 1940; that his income is 11s. National Health Insurance and 6s. from the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers; why has the man not received compensation; why the delay; and will this be paid at once with retrospective pay?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): Mr. Morrey did receive compensation in the form of injury allowances under the Civilians Scheme from the date of his injury in November, 1940, up to 27th May, 1941, that is, for the period of 26 weeks after which an award of pension is normally considered. I regret that instructions were not given for the continuance of injury allowances until the question of pension was settled, but they have now been reinstated with retrospective effect from 28th May, 1941, and will remain in payment until pension can be awarded.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

SCHEDULE OF RESERVED OCCUPATIONS.

Mr. Nunn: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will establish tribunals to decide definitely what men shall be reserved as a minimum staff for business and industrial concerns so that arrangements can be made to continue output, bearing in mind that it is difficult for firms to continue their work with any confidence on the basis of temporary exemptions?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): As at present advised, my right hon. Friend does not think that tribunals are required to deal with this matter. The existing arrangements for the deferment of the calling-up of a limited number of men of military age, who are not reserved

under the Schedule of Reserved Occupations and Protected Work, admit of the grant of deferment which may in suitable cases be tantamount to individual reservation. No permanent reservation or deferment of calling-up can, of course, be guaranteed to any man of military age.

TRAINEES (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that persons who go as trainees to Government training centres are called upon to pay their own fares, and, in many instances, this amount exceeds 10s. a week; and will he consider making some allowances to them to meet this expense?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have already written to my hon. Friend on this subject. Arrangements have now been made for daily travelling expenses in excess of 5s. per week to be paid in the case of all boarder trainees over 21 years of age and all trainees living at home over 19 years of age in Government Training Centres. The assistance given in the case of all other trainees is already greater than this.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will that payment be retrospective where applications have been made?

Mr. Tomlinson: Where applications are made for retrospective payments, they will have to be considered on their merits.

EVACUEES (EMPLOYMENT).

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give any information as to what proportion of evacuees, who have reached the school-leaving age, have obtained employment in the reception areas?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.

Mr. G. Macdonald: asked the Minister of Labour how any working days have been lost due to industrial disputes during the 12 months ended 30th June, 1941; and what is the comparative figure for any similar period during the Great War and also for the 12 months immediately preceding the outbreak of the present war?

Mr. Tomlinson: The total number of working days lost in industrial disputes causing stoppages of work, so far as reported to my Department, was approximately 990,000 in the twelve months ended 30th June, 1941, and 1,300,000 in the twelve months ended 31st August, 1939. In the years 1915–18 the corresponding totals were approximately, 2,950,000 in 1915; 2,450,000 in 1916; 5,650,000 in 1917; and 5,880,000 in 1918.

WOMEN.

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Labour whether, to avoid prejudicial effect on home life, and especially in view of the increased responsibilities thrown on mothers, he will apply the conscription of women in the first place to young single women?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is not at present the intention to apply conscription to women. As regards women registered under the Registration for Employment Order, it has been arranged with the advice of the Women's Consultative Committee that women with no occupation are called for interview before women in employment. Within each group, single women are interviewed before married women. Women who have children under 14 years of age living with them are not called for interview.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Percy Gott Barstow, Esquire, for the County of York, West Riding (Pontefract Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business in Committee of Supply may be taken after the hour appointed for the interruption of Business and that the Proceedings of the Committee of Supply be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Financial Powers (U.S.A. Securities) Bill.

War Damage (Extension of Risk Period) Bill, without Amendment.

Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[17TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1941.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

PRODUCTION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £90, be granted to His Majesty. to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply, including expenses of the Royal Ordnance Factories.

The Chairman: There are on the Order Paper to-day four Votes for four major Ministries—the Ministry of Supply, the Ministry of Aircraft Production, the Ministry of Labour and National Service, and the Admiralty. I understand these Votes have been put down in the belief, no doubt a correct belief, that the Committee desire to have a general and wide discussion in Committee of Supply on the subject of Production. The Rules of Debate in Committee of Supply would normally make this quite impossible, but. under the circumstances and in view of the emergency period, if it be the general wish of the Committee, the Chair will raise no objection. But I feel bound to add that the very rapid, I might call it exotic, growth of these departures from the Rules of Debate in Supply may cause hon. Members as well as the Chair, very great trouble in future, when it becomes necessary again to enforce some of these Rules. I trust that the Committee, therefore, will bear in mind that this is not merely an ordinary departure, but is an extraordinary departure from our Rules for the purposes of an emergency period. In view of the rapid growth which has taken place in these departures, I think the time has come—and I should like hon. Members to bear this in mind—when some consideration will probably have to be given to making some alterations in the Rules of Debate in Committee of Supply.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): On 22nd January of this year I explained to the House the system of administration and production which it was proposed to adopt. I stated this in detail and at length, and I hope my statement may be studied again by those who have forgotten it, because it is the system we have followed since, and it is the system to which, in general and in principle, I propose to adhere. Changes in personnel are caused from time to time by the march of events and by the duty of continual improvement. Changes in machinery are enjoined by experience, and naturally while we live we ought to learn. Change is agreeable to the human mind and gives satisfaction, sometimes short-lived, to ardent and anxious public opinion. But, if Parliament is convinced, and those to whom it has given its confidence are convinced, that the system is working well and smoothly, then I say change for the sake of change is to be deprecated. In war-time, especially in vast, nation-wide and in some respects world-wide organisation, continuity and stability must not be underrated. If we were perpetually to be altering our system or lending ourselves too lightly to that process, we might achieve the appearance of energy and reform only at the expense of the authority of individuals and only to the detriment of the smooth working of the machinery, and at a heavy cost in output, which is the sole objective. Therefore, it is at the point where I left off this subject when I discussed it with the House in January that I take up my theme to-day.
There are two main aspects in which production must be considered. First, the organisation of planning and control, and, secondly the actual conditions present in the factories. Let us see first of all what was, and what is the system upon which the high administrative control of our war effort proceeds. The foundation must, of course, be a single, co-ordinated plan for the programmes of the three Services based upon our strategic needs. In my capacity as Minister of Defence, without which I could not bear the responsibilities entrusted to me for bringing about a successful outcome of the war, in that capacity, I prepared for the War Cabinet during the first three months of this year a revised general scheme, bringing together the whole of our munition pro-


duction and import programme, and prescribing the highest reasonable target at which we ought to aim. For this purpose I was furnished with the forward programmes of the various fighting Departments, very much in the same way as the Service Estimates are brought before the Cabinet and the Treasury in the autumn in time of peace. I discussed these programmes orally and in writing with the Ministers and Service Chiefs of those Departments. The programmes were also examined by my own statistical Department under Professor Lindemann, now Lord Cherwell, and through the machinery of the Office of the Minister of Defence, which, as the House knows, embodies the peace-time Committee of Imperial Defence organisation. The work of these organisations proceeds ceaselessly. The strategic aspect of production is also continually considered by the Chiefs of Staff Committee, which meets every day, to advise upon or direct the conduct of the war. The general scheme, or War Supply Budget for the year 1941, a series of printed documents agreed with the Service Ministers and comprising a perfectly clear apportionment of resources and tasks, received the final approval of the War Cabinet on 31st March, and thereafter became mandatory on all Departments. There is, of course, no absolute finality in this scheme. Within its general framework revision and adjustment under the pressure of events are continuous.
So much for the framework of the general layout. The execution of this scheme on the military side is confided to the three great Supply Departments, namely, the Controller's Department of the Admiralty, the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Aircraft Production. The work had been parcelled out, and it remained for them to do it. The picture so luridly drawn of the chaotic and convulsive struggles of the three Supply Departments, without guidance or design, is one which will no doubt be pleasing to our enemies, but happily has no relation to the facts. The question however arises whether, in their execution of the approved scheme, the three Supply Departments have either been wanting in energy, or, on the contrary, through excess of zeal have quarrelled with each other or have trespassed upon each other's domain. There are no doubt instances of friction at the

fringe of these powerful organisations, but I do not believe they bear any proportion worth mentioning to their individual and concerted efforts. It must be remembered that a very high proportion of our war production is carried out in factories working solely for one Department. That is true of aircraft factories, naval shipbuilding firms, ordnance factories, automobile factories and many others. A system has also been worked out for the allocation of the capacity of private engineering firms, either to single departments, or, in other cases, to two or more Departments in stated proportions. Probably half the factories concerned and certainly more than three-quarters of the men employed are working now, at this time, for one single Department. The Admiralty has its many firms, with their factories dating from long ago and kept alive during our rotten periods by Admiralty orders. The Air Ministry has been striving for a great many years to build up an aircraft industry in this island pending the day when Parliament should decide to have an Air Force equal to any within striking distance of these shores. The War Office, always in time of peace the drudge and starveling of British defence, had its own Ordnance Factories and was at last on the eve of the war accorded a Ministry of Supply and this Ministry of Supply has of course extended over a very large part of the remaining British industry.
At the point which we have now reached in our munitions development almost all firms and factories are working under the complete control of the Government at the fulfilment of the approved and concerted programmes. They are either working directly or indirectly in the sphere of war production, or they are ministering to our domestic and other needs. In this domestic field also, however, a very complete and searching organisation under Government control has been instituted. At the present moment, the whole industry of the country with inconsiderable exceptions, which may soon be licked up and absorbed, is assigned its function under Government authority. There are no doubt a number of minor aspects of our national life which have not yet been effectively regimented. When and as they are wanted, their turn will come. We are not a totalitarian State but we are steadily, and I believe as fast as possible, working ourselves into total war organi-


sation. When we are given vivid instances of lack of organisation or of interdepartmental rivalry in some of the shops and factories, and when these are all bunched together to make an ill-smelling posy, it is just as well to remember that the area of disputation is limited, circumscribed and constantly narrowing.
In order to regulate the imports of commodities from abroad in accordance with the policy prescribed by the War Cabinet, we have, as I explained six months ago, the Import Executive comprising the heads of the Importing Departments, and presided over by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and formerly by him when he was Minister of Supply. This is working very smoothly and I am not aware of any troubles or disputes which have arisen. I should certainly hear of these soon enough if there were any. By the side of this Import Executive we have the North American Supply Committee with its elaborate corresponding organisation in the United States. We are always trying to tighten up and make more precise and definite the work of our Purchasing Commissions in the United States. I should certainly not pretend that there is not a great deal of room for improvement and refinement, but it would be a mistake to suppose that the efficiency of our Purchasing Commissions under the supreme control of Mr. Purvis has not reached a very high level or that it is not constantly being shaped and sharpened. A year ago, six months ago, there were a lot of troubles and discordances but latterly, although again I should be the first to hear of them, my information is that they have very largely died away.
We have of course to come to very clear-cut agreements with our American friends and helpers. They are making an immense effort for the common cause and they naturally ask for the fullest and clearest information about what is happening to their goods and whether there is waste or misdirection. It is our duty to satisfy them that there is no muddle, or that muddle is reduced to a minimum and that they are getting value for their money. We welcome their criticism because it is at once searching, friendly and well informed. The improvement in the ordering of imports and of the British purchases in the United States, and in the relations of the very large number of

competent persons who work night and day on both sides of the ocean, in this sphere is, I am glad to say, steady and progressive.
Now I come to the home scene. What are the relations of the three Supply Departments in the vast fertile production field of this busy island? I have already said that for their chief production each of the Fighting Services through its Supply Department or Ministry to an overwhelming extent commands its own factories and labour. Nevertheless, there is an inevitable region of debatable ground of firms which serve several Departments at once. Many of them are small sub-contracting firms or firms which make components. Besides this, a process of change is continually going forward to meet the rapidly varying demands of the war. A firm is resigned by the Admiralty and can be transferred either to the Ministry of Aircraft Production or to the Ministry of Supply. Particular lines of production acquire special urgency or importance as we gain experience from the fighting or as new ideas come along. One line of production dries up because it is no longer needed; another opens or grows in scale. Obviously there is rivalry in this part of the field between the Supply Departments. There ought to be rivalry and there ought to be zealous competition within the limits of the programme prescribed. It is this zealous competition, limited though it be to a fraction of our industry, which presents the hard cases and sometimes the bad instances of which so much is made.
It is among other things for the purpose of resolving the disputes and rivalries of the Departments in this limited field that the Production Executive was called into being in January. The Minister of Labour, himself a contributory factor as Minister of Labour to the work of the rest of the Executive and himself a Member of the War Cabinet, presides over a committee of six, three of whom are the heads of the Supply Departments, and the other two are the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Works and Buildings. As I explained to the House six months ago, all the members of this body have every interest to agree. They may have different interests to advocate because they have different duties to discharge, but it is a delusion to suppose that they do not feel a corporate responsibility and try to work together for


the common purpose and for the execution of the approved programmes entrusted to them. If they agree they have the power to act. Each can make his contribution to the common action immediately and the movement of labour and materials can be ordered there and then. If there is a difference which cannot be settled by agreement of compromise, any Minister of Cabinet rank, and they are all such, has the right of appeal to the War Cabinet, or, as between the Service Supply Departments, in the first instance to me as Minister of Defence. During my tenure I have seen some very sharp differences but those differences have never been so sharp as they were, as I well remember having lived through it, in the days of the last war. All I can say now is that for the last four months no question of departmental rivalry or dispute has been brought to me or the War Cabinet from the Production Executive. I give the assurance to the House to-day that in the high controlling organisation there is now no dispute in progress about priorities of labour, raw materials, factory space or machine tools. Do not suppose however that this remarkable fact is the result of inertia or decay. On the contrary, as I shall show before I sit down—I am afraid I shall have to make a somewhat prolonged demand on the patience of the Committee, the subject is of great importance and must be dealt with comprehensively—production in all its forms is gaining steadily and swiftly, not only in volume, but, even at its present high altitude, in momentum.
I may say, while I am on the point, that much of this talk about the difficulties of settling priorities is a back number. The whole business of priorities has undergone a complete transformation. We have no more of these arrogant, absolute priorities in virtue of which one Department claimed all that there was of a particular commodity and left nothing for the lesser but indispensable needs of others. Although the 1A priority is still maintained largely for psychological reasons, for certain particular spheres of production such as aircraft, and tanks now, it is no longer exercised in the crude manner of the last war or in the early months of this. The method of allocation of labour, materials, and facilities has modified and to a large extent replaced the scale of

priorities. Allocation is the governing principle, and priorities are becoming little more than a stimulus upon its detailed assignments.
It is at this point and in this setting that I will deal with the suggestion that a Ministry of Production should be formed. Several speakers referred to this in the recent Debate, and apparently it is regarded by some of our most important newspapers as an easy and speedy solution of our difficulties. There is however a difference among the advocates of a Ministry of Production. Some ask that there should be a complete merging of the Supply Departments of the Admiralty, the Air Ministry and the War Office, and that there should be one great common shop, or vast Department or emporium serving all fighting needs. That would be very pretty if we were not at war. Others, recoiling from the frightful disturbance and confusion which would accompany the transition and the danger of upsetting so much in the midst of war, are content to ask for one Minister, presumably assisted by a secretarial staff, who should be interposed between the Prime Minister and Minister of Defence and the three Supply Departments. Nothing would be easier than for me to gratify this request by asking one of my colleagues in the War Cabinet to call himself Minister of Production and to duplicate the work of general apportionment which I already do. But, so far from helping me in my task, or helping the Departments in theirs, this would be an additional complication, burden and cause of delay.
Moreover, the relations of this Minister of Production with the three Supply Departments would be most unsatisfactory. He would either have to trust them and use them, as I do, for the purpose of executing the prescribed programmes, or he would be left to break into these Departments, interfere with their work and try to get things done by his personal exertions. The Ministers at the head of these Departments are men of energy, experience and knowledge. They work night and day, and they have powerful, far-reaching, swift-running machinery at their disposal. If, in the sphere assigned to them, they cannot execute the programme with which they are charged, I do not myself see how a super-Minister from outside, with his


skeleton staff, could do it for them. If the new Minister's control were nominal, and did not affect the Ministerial responsibility of the heads of the Supply Departments, it would be a farce and a fraud upon the public to which I will not stoop. If, on the other hand, the Minister of Production attempted to lay strong hands on the internal administration and day-today work of these Departments, they would confront him with a knowledge superior to his own and far more intimate, and all the resulting differences would have to come tome, with very great friction to the administrative machine and additional burdens upon the head of the Government.
Furthermore, these matters cannot be considered without reference to the personalities involved. I have not been told who is to be this superman who, without holding the office of Prime Minister, is to exercise an overriding control and initiative over the three Departments of Supply and the three Ministers of Supply. Where is the super-personality who, as one of the members of the War Cabinet, will dominate the vast, entrenched, established, embattled organisation of the Admiralty to whose successful exertions we owe our lives? Where is the War Cabinet Minister who is going to teach the present Minister of Aircraft Production how to make aircraft quicker and better than they are being made now? Who is the War Cabinet Minister who is going to interfere with Lord Beaverbrook's control and discharge of the functions of Minister of Supply duly and constitutionally conferred upon him? When you have decided on the man, let me know his name, because I should be very glad to serve under him, provided that I was satisfied that he possessed all the Napoleonic and Christian qualities attributed to him. In the conduct of vast, nation-wide administration there must be division of functions, and there must be proper responsibility assigned to the departmental chiefs. They must have the power and authority to do their work, and be able to take a proper pride in it when it is done, and be held accountable for it if it is not done.
Moreover, as I have tried to show, such difficulties as exist are not found at the summit but out in the country in a minority of smaller firms and factories. I do not for a moment deny that there

are many things that go wrong and ought to be put right, but does anyone in his senses suggest that this should be the task of the super-Minister, that he should take up the hard cases and breakdowns by direct intervention from above? All he could do would be to refer complaints or scandals that came to his notice to the heads of the three Supply Departments, and, if he did not get satisfaction, he, having no power to remove or change the Ministers involved, would have to come to me, on whom rests the responsibility of advising His Majesty in such matters.
For good or ill, in any sensible organisation you must leave the execution of policies already prescribed to the responsible Ministers and Departments. If they cannot do it, no one can. It is to them that complaints should be addressed. It is to them that Members should write. Any case of which full particulars are provided—I must add that proviso—will be searchingly examined. We do not stand here to defend the slightest failure of duty or organisation. But let us have the facts. A kind of whispering campaign has been set on foot; there is a, flood of anonymous letters. Vague and general charges are made. And all this fills our shop window, greatly to our detriment. It is impossible for me, within the limits of this Debate, to deal with various specific allegations which were made by Members in different parts of the House in the two preceding days of this Debate. Such a treatment of the matter would be entirely out of proportion, and I should have to trespass upon the Committee altogether unduly.
I turn aside, however, for a moment to deal with one particular aspect of the problem of production, namely machine tools. The "Times," in its leading article this morning, makes the valuable suggestion that a census of machine tools throughout the country should be held. There have already been three—in June, 1940, in November, 1940, and a partial census of the principal firms in June, 1941. The Supply Ministers are responsible for the use of machine tools to the best advantage. There is, however, a controller of machine tools, Mr. Mills, a business man of the highest repute, whose sole duty is to supervise their employment by all Departments. By the joint agreement and good will of the three Supply


Departments, this gentleman has independent powers. He has his own representatives throughout the country. Although he is actually under the Ministry of Supply, he can remove any machine tool that is idle from any Department or factory and transfer it to another, and he is continually exercising these powers. He exercised them on several occasions against the late Minister of Aircraft Production before the recent changes in the Government took place. This functionary is given these powers with good will by people who wish to submit their Departments to his use of them.
There are, however, three limiting factors in the use of machine tools. The first is any shortage that may exist of skilled labour, which we are striving by every method to overcome. The second is the undoubted difficulty we have found in working to the full extent night shifts under conditions of air attack. It is the third limiting factor which gives rise to the complaints which are made. I am not an expert in these matters, but I am told that there are between 200 and 300 kinds of machine tools in our census. Their effective use is governed by certain precision machine tools of which there is a shortage. I need not say how intense are the efforts to break down these vexatious bottle-necks. Moreover, the precision tools of which there is a shortage vary sometimes with the varying demands of war production, and sometimes the block is found here and sometimes there. Thus, when people go about the country and see at some garage or factory or in some small firm a number of machine tools of the lower grades, or of peace-time specialised types, lying idle and write to their Member about it, the explanation is not that the supply of machine tools is not organised to the highest degree, not that the Government do not know about these machine tools, where they are and what they are, not that they do not in general know about them and have them on their census list, it is because, owing to the shortage at key points of special precision types, many of these tools cannot be brought into action, and there would be no sense in crowding out the factories with redundant machinery.
That is a digression which I have made because I have read with some interest the thoughtful article which appears in the

"Times" this morning. Hardly any part of our common organisation for war production has been more thoroughly and precisely examined than the question of machine tools. No one can be engaged, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) knows, in munition production for one day without feeling that this is, as it were, the ganglion nerve, the centre of the whole of supply.
I said just now that I cannot go into details of many of the cases which hon. Members brought up in the Debate. If they will write about them, they will be gone into in detail. There was, however, one charge made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) which, as it has had wide publicity and as it affects the United States supplies, requires to be answered. My hon. Friend said:
The sad feature of the United States supply of aircraft is that whereas orders were energetically placed in the last two years or more for airframes and engines, those who placed them forgot at the same time to ensure that supplies of maintenance equipment and ancillary equipment were provided. What is the result? Of one type of aircraft imported from the United States, complete and operationally ready, there are several hundreds—or were a few weeks ago—lying unpacked in inland warehouses, in their crates, for the sole reason that those who placed the orders on behalf of the Ministry of Aircraft Production did not order the necessary ancillary equipment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1941; col. 204, vol. 373.]
So far as aircraft on British order are concerned, this statement is quite untrue. All British orders for American aircraft have always been placed with spare engines and spares for airframes. There has been no failure or oversight of this kind in ordering British aircraft.
The mistake into which my hon. Friend has fallen arose from an exceptional event. When the French collapsed, all their contracts for aircraft in the United States were taken over immediately, for what they were worth, by the Minister of Aircraft Production. There was not an hour's delay. These aircraft had to be accepted in the condition in which they were prepared for the French, under French orders. This is the case to which I am sure reference was made in this passage of my hon. Friend's speech. They had to be accepted in the condition in which the French had specified them and in which they were delivered by the


American manufacturers. This was a windfall, but it had its drawbacks. For instance, the French Tomahawks arrived without spare engines or spares for their airframes, exactly as my hon. Friend pointed out. They were built to take French guns. Their wireless sets did not tune with ours. Their instruments were on the metric system. They were not armoured according to our conditions. They differed in many ways from our methods of control and manoeuvre. Instead of pushing some lever forwards, you had to pull it backwards, which our pilots found most inconvenient.
As swiftly as possible these aircraft have been modified and brought into use. The "cannibal" system was frequently resorted to of necessity, leaving lots of them partly gutted, but practically all of these French American aeroplanes are in use and have been most satisfactory in operation. Now there is the whole of that story that has been paraded as a typical scandal and example of how we do our business.

Mr. Garro Jones: No one would be more delighted than I to feel that British aeroplane orders were complete with operational equipment. My right hon. Friend has told the Committee that the types ordered for the French were not complete with operational equipment. Did I understand him correctly to say that the types ordered for British use were complete with their operational equipment?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I said that as plainly as I could. I said that the suggestion that they had not been ordered with their operational equipment was untrue, and I adhere to it. Everything that has been ordered on British account has been ordered complete. The aeroplanes ordered on French account were lacking in this equipment. An inquiry addressed to the Minister concerned would have elicited an immediate explanation, but when allegations of this sort are given the utmost publicity in Parliament by a Member speaking from the front Bench opposite, uninformed American readers—here is where the serious part comes—must come to the conclusion that there is disorganisation and incapacity in the conduct of our munitions business, and this opinion, so damaging to us, would be based entirely on misconception and mis-

understanding. It is not, I am glad to say, shared by the American authorities. I presided at a recent meeting attended by Mr. Harry Hopkins, the Lease-Lend authority, to whose words we listened with so much comfort the other night. He, with his full knowledge and attended by expert American officers, dwelt upon the trials and difficulties attending the modification of aircraft from the United States on French account and expressed satisfaction with the arrangements we had made to overcome them. But outside this circle, who know all the facts, inside the United States, where there is a vigorous campaign against the policy pursued by the President and the majority, I fear that harm has been done, and it cannot be easily overtaken or healed.
What are the other elements which produce oscillations or discordances in the process of production? They arise, of course, out of the changing conditions of the war. As new needs arise, new directions have to be given, which undoubtedly cause disturbances in the flow of production, but I must say I have the feeling that the British machinery of production, vast and intricate though it be, is capable not only of flexible adaptation but of sustaining successfully a number of inevitable jerks. These take place, for instance, largely in the sphere of aircraft production. The Minister of Aircraft Production explained to the House on the second day of this Debate the constant changes in the design of aircraft which arose from the progress of our aeronautics and our experience of manufacture and war. He showed how it was sometimes inevitable that there should be a break in the continuity of production because one type had failed and another had proved itself because one type was being faded out and another being worked in, and how this must happen when you run the risk of ordering off the drawing board and carrying out large orders on the basis of the pilot model without having the time to go though all the processes which in peace-time make the completion of the aeroplane from the moment of its conception a matter of five or six years.
It is a difficult question to decide when the mass production of a particular type should be discarded in favour of a new and better type, and to what intensity such a process of transformation should be carried. I think on the whole, at this


moment, we have carried it a bit far. Aircraft of a particular type which slowly Work up to the peak of production may be discarded after too short a run at the peak level—no doubt for very good reasons, very fine reasons, greater bomb capacity, greater speed and so forth. Simplification and continuity of serial production are, of course the basic factors necessary in securing flow of output, and it is a question of balancing between the two sides. All the same, believe me, mastery of the air, leadership and command in design cannot possibly be achieved except by a process of interminable trial; and error and the scrapping of old types. Something better comes along. You cannot afford to miss it, even if you have to pay, and pay heavily, in numbers of output or dislocation in a section of the workshops. The struggle for air mastery requires vast numbers, but those vast numbers could not succeed alone unless the forward leading types constantly achieve the highest level of enterprise and perfection. Combat in the air is the quintessence of all physical struggle. To lose primacy in the quality of the latest machines would be incompatible with the attainment of that command of the air in quality and in quantity upon which a large part of our confidence is founded.
I am glad to tell the Committee that our spring and, summer fashions in aircraft are this year farther ahead of contemporary German production than they were last year, The enemy borrowed many ideas from our fighter aeroplanes when he felt their mettle a year ago, and we borrowed from him too, but in the upshot we have confronted him in 1941 with fighter aircraft which in performance, speed, ceiling and, above all, gun armaments have left our pilots with the old, and even an added, sense of technical superiority. It would take too long to describe, as I easily could do, some of the Smaller causes of oscillation which affect the execution of the Navy and Army supply programmes. I could show in a way which I think would satisfy the Committee that a certain measure of change, with resulting dislocation, is inevitable under the strenuous conditions of war, but I do not propose to enter upon either of those fields to-day.
Let me come, on the other hand, to an example of criticism which is helpful

and constructive. I have read the Seventeenth Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. It deals with the conditions in the filling factories. These are admittedly far from satisfactory. Since the war began great factories have been built in out-of-the-way districts, without time to meet the needs and amenities of the working population. They have not by any means yet reached their full capacity and proper standards. Although we have been making many millions of shells there are still several millions of shells and their components, including fuses, which are not yet filled. But there is no need for alarm, but rather for greater exertion, because in this war we are firing shells at men and not, as in the last war, so largely at ground. Nor have we a great battlefront continuously engaged. We are making on an enormous scale, but we are not firing on any scale. It is important to remember in the battles in the desert the difficulties of getting ammunition to the places where the guns are, and since the front in France broke down there is no field of fire for our artillery. Therefore, what we have witnessed is not, as in the last war, as I know so well and as did my right hon. Friend before me, the feeling of intense effort to feed the guns from day to day, but we are piling up large and satisfactory reserves with no corresponding outflow to drain them off at the present time. Let me say nothing which would in any way remove from the minds of those engaged in the filling factories the view that catching up with the filling of the already large stores of components, fuses and shell-cases is not a work of prime and high order and of national importance.
Representatives of the Select Committee visited the filling factories in June and they produced a number of extremely shrewd and valuable suggestions dealing with transport, hostels, canteens, Sunday work and piece-work. We agree with nearly all of them. We will adopt almost all of them. We agree with them the more readily and we can adopt them the more speedily because, as I see from the records, on 7th January and on 5th February, in my capacity as Minister of Defence, I presided over two successive meetings of the Supply Committee on this very subject. Almost every one of these proposals had already been ordered to be put into operation months before, and has been or is being carried into effect with


very great improvement, in spite of the many difficulties attendant upon the bringing into action of these great new plants in out-of-the-way districts under the conditions which prevailed last winter.
I have here a detailed account of all that had been set on foot or that had been done before the Select Committee visited the factories. I will send it to the Chairman of the Committee for their further observations. It is too long for me to read to the Committee in detail, but it shows that great minds sometimes think alike, and that the Government great minds had a good long start of the great minds of the Select Committee. The Report of the Select Committee is the kind of criticism that one wants—not mere vague abuse and prejudice, in which only bad citizens and bad people indulge in times like these, but helpful and constructive suggestions, many of which were contained in the speeches made from the Front Bench opposite.
I leave the first part of this subject, dealing with discordances and shortcomings alleged to be attributable to faults or weaknesses in the high control, and I come to the more general charges of slackness and inefficiency in the factories themselves, whether due to local lack of management or to lack of zeal in the workpeople. There is a certain class of member of all parties—you can count them on your fingers and toes—who feel, no doubt quite sincerely, that their war work should be to belabour the Government and portray everything at its worst, in order to produce a higher efficiency. I see that a Motion has been put on the Paper calling specifically for the appointment of a Minister of Production. I consider that to be a perfectly proper step for the Members concerned to take. I regret only that the Motion cannot be moved in this form to-day. If the Members who have fathered it do not feel satisfied with the reasons I have given against creating a Minister or a Ministry of Production, I hope that they will not hesitate to go to a Division by moving a nominal reduction of one of the Votes we are discussing. That is the straightforward and manly course. No-one should be deterred in war-time from doing his duty merely by the fact that he will be voting against the Government or still

less because the Party Whips are acting as tellers.
We are often told that "the House of Commons thinks this" or "feels that." Newspapers write: "The general feeling was of grave uneasiness," "There was much disquiet in the Lobby," etc. All this is telegraphed all over the world and produces evil effects. No-one has a right to say what is the opinion of the House of Commons unless there has been a Division. We suffer now from not having Divisions. We have Debates, to which a very small minority of Members are able to contribute because of the time. They express their anxiety and grievances and make our affairs out as bad as they possibly can, and these bulk unduly in the reports which reach the public or are heard abroad. These Members do not represent the opinion of the House of Commons or of the nation, nor do their statements give a true picture of the prodigious war effort of the British people. Parliament should be an arena in which grievances and complaints become vocal. The Press also should be a prompt and vigilant alarm bell, ringing when things are not going right. But it is a very heavy burden added to the others we have to bear if, without a vote being cast, the idea should be spread at home and abroad that it is the opinion of the House of Commons that our affairs are being conducted in an incompetent and futile manner and that the whole gigantic drive of British industry is just one great muddle and flop.
People speak of workmen getting £6, £7 or £8 a week and not giving a fair return to the State. It is also asserted, on the other hand, that the workmen are eager to work, but that the mismanagement from the summit is such that they are left for weeks or even months without the raw material, or the particular component or the special direction which they require for their task. We may be quite sure that in an organisation which deals with so many millions of people under all the stresses of the present time and in view of the present conditions, as well as the inevitable oscillations of war-time which I have mentioned, there are a great many faults, and we must try sedulously to eradicate those faults and to raise the harmony and cohesion of our whole productive effort. Here again, it is important to preserve a sense of proportion


and not to be led away by thinking that hard cases, wrong deeds and minor or local discordances represent more than a very small fraction of our war performance. It is no less important—indeed, in a way it is even more important—not to sum up and condemn the whole effort of the nation as if it were expressed in these discordances and failures. That is my complaint about the recent Debate and the use made of it by certain sections of the Press and the results upon our own self-confidence and still more upon opinion friendly, hostile or balancing in foreign countries.

Mr. A. Bevan: Who said that?

The Prime Minister: I am quoting no particular person. I am saying that the effect of the Debate was to give that hostile impression. When I read the Debate, that was the effect it had upon me, and I set myself to present a complete picture to the Committee. I was distressed at this aspect of the matter. I therefore ventured to ask the House to resume the Debate, and I should be glad to have the matter brought to a plain issue.
It is on this footing and with these preliminaries in dealing with the second sphere of my subject, namely, what is going on in the factories, that I come to the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Ward-law-Milne), who said that "our people are only working up to 75 per cent. of their possible efficiency." I am well aware that, in making that statement, my hon. Friend did not wish to attack the Government or in any way to embarrass the national defence. In fact, he has been ill-used. This particular sentence has been wrested from its context and from the whole character of his speech. Nevertheless, as Chairman of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, he holds a very responsible position and is credited with exceptional knowledge. A statement like this, coming from him, although uttered with the best of motives, is serious when it is broadcast apart from its context. I have to think of its effect in Australia, for instance, where party politics are pursued with the same robust detachment as was exhibited by our forerunners in this House in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. A statement like this, taken out of its context,

or in a very summarised version of what was said, becomes the subject of lively discussion out there. Australian troops are bearing with great distinction much of the brunt of the fighting in the Middle East, and it must be very painful to Australians to be told that we are only making a three-quarter effort here at home to put proper weapons in their hands. In America, such a statement is meat and drink to the Isolationist forces. Americans are being asked to pay much heavier taxes, to give up their food, to alter their daily lives, and to reduce their motor cars, indulgencies and pleasures of all kinds, in order to help Britain, and I cannot help being deeply disturbed when they are told on what seems to be high British authority that we are making only a three-quarter hearted effort to help ourselves. My hon. Friend's allegation has been wrested from its context. I have no quarrel with him, but it has gone to all parts of the country and to all quarters of the world; but nothing can be done about that.
What is important is whether it is true; but how difficult to decide because, after all, this is a double expression of opinion —first, as to whether it is 75 per cent. or not, and, secondly, 75 per cent. of what? I have tried to find a datum line, and I take as the datum line the three months after Dunkirk. Then, it will be admitted, our people worked to the utmost limit of their moral, mental and physical strength. Men fell exhausted at their lathes, and workmen and working women did not take their clothes off for a week at a time. Meals, rest, and relaxation all faded from their minds, and they just carried onto the utmost limit of their strength. Thus there was a great spurt in June, July and August of last year. Immense efforts were made, and every semi-finished weapon was forced through to completion, very often at the expense of immediate future output, producing an altogether abnormal inflation of production. So let us take those three months as the datum line; you could not have a harder test.
Now is it true that we are only working 75 per cent. of that? There are certainly one or two reasons why we cannot wholly recapture and maintain indefinitely the intense personal efforts of a year ago. First of all, if we are to win this war—and I feel solidly convinced


that we shall—it will be largely by staying power. For that purpose you must have reasonable minimum holidays for the masses of the workers. There must, as my hon. Friend himself urged in his speech, be one day in seven of rest as a general rule, and there must be, subject to coping with bottle-necks and with emergencies which know no law, a few breaks and where possible one week's holiday in the year. Since what I will call the Dunkirk three months datum period, we have undoubtedly relaxed to that extent. Sunday work is practically eliminated, and brief periods of leisure have been allowed to break the terrible routine strain of continuous employment. I am quite sure that if we had not done so, we should have had a serious crack which would have cost far more in production than these brief periods of rest from labour.
Next, allowance must be made for the very severe change in the diet of the heavy manual worker. It is quite true that no one has gone short of food; there has been no hunger, there has not been the confusion of the last war at some periods, but no one can pretend that the diet of the British people and especially of their heavy workers has not become far less stimulating and interesting than it was a year ago. Except for our Fighting Services, we have been driven back to a large extent from the carnivore to the herbivore. That may be quite satisfactory to the dietetic scientists who would like to make us all live on nuts, but undoubtedly it has produced, and is producing, a very definite effect upon the energetic output of the heavy worker. [Interruption.] The Noble Lord knows I could discuss a great many matters in Secret Session, but he is one of the first to get up and say he would like to have these discussions in public, under conditions where nothing can be said by the Government in answer to the kind of criticism with which he associated himself. We want more meat in the mines and the foundries, and we want more cheese. Why should that gratify Lord Haw-Haw? Lord Haw-Haw should also bear in mind the statement of Mr. Harry Hopkins the other day, on the intention of the United States to see that we get our food, and of their intention to keep clear the sea-lanes by which our food will be brought. I know of the great arrangements which have been made to

send us food in nourishing, varied and more interesting quantities. Therefore there is no need to tell me I am helping Lord Haw-Haw. If he never gets any more consolation than he gets from me, his lot will be as hard as his deserts. Every effort will be made, and is being made, to supplement this deficiency, and I share the hope of the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture that our rations in 1942 will be more stimulating and more tensely nourishing than in 1941.
That is the second reason. The first is the need for some relaxation; then there is this question of food, which has come upon us gradually and which is serious. I wish it to be known all over the United States that it is serious, because it encourages them in their actions. The third reason is this: Look at all the dilution we have had. It is estimated that one-third more people are working in the war industries than there were a year ago. A great many of these are trainees and newcomers. It would not be wonderful if they failed to preserve the same level of output per pair of human hands as was achieved by the skilled craftsmen of a year or 18 months ago. Naturally they will improve. They are improving, but dilution means a reduction in efficiency per pair of human hands in the earlier stages.
Then, fourthly, there has been a great dislocation by reason of the air raids, by which the Germans hoped to smash up our industries and break down our power of resistance last autumn and winter. Air-raid destruction, extraordinary blitzes on our ports and manufacturing centres, the restrictions of the black-out, the interruption and delays of transportation, all played their delaying and dislocating parts. The remedy and counter-measure which was proposed and carried through when possible with such extreme vigour by the Supply Departments, with Lord Beaverbrook and the Ministry of Aircraft Production in the van as the inspiring force, took the form of dispersion. This was a matter of life and death, in the aircraft industry as well as in other key war industries. The great Bristol firm, for instance, was dispersed into nearly 45 sub-centres. I could give you —and the enemy too—a score of instances of the dispersion of firms to 20, 30 or 40 sub-centres. All this has been an obstacle to the smooth running of production. It has placed us, however, in a


position in which we are immune from mortal damage from enemy air raids in our aircraft production and other branches of munitions. We may suffer, we may be retarded, we can no longer be destroyed. When a great firm like the Bristol firm is divided and dispersed, consider the trials of the workpeople and the problems of the management. Workpeople by the thousand have to be moved from their homes, plant has to be shifted, ruined factories have to be reconditioned, domestic affairs have somehow or other to be adjusted, often with great sacrifice and hardship, and it is a marvel what has been done to overcome these grievous and novel difficulties. That they should hamper the pace and intensity of production was inevitable.
I have now described to the Committee a number of solid factors which have fallen upon us since the Dunkirk period, all of which have tended to obstruct and reduce output. I should like to give the Committee some facts and figures to show how far we have succeeded, by improved organisation and by the smoother running of our expanding machinery, in overcoming these adverse currents which I have set out at length. But here I encounter a new difficulty. I am told we cannot have these Debates in Secret Session; they must be in public. The Germans must read in two or three days every word we say, and therefore I cannot give actual figures. In addition, I am told by my hon. Friends to "Let us have none of those comparative percentages; let us not be told that we are producing half as much again or double what we produced this time last year, because we were producing nothing last year or something like it." As my hon. Friend said—it is a Lancashire saying— "Twice nowt is nowt." So, according to these critics, I am inhibited from all vindicatory comparisons. I must not say how much better we are than at this time last year when, after all, we had been at war for 10 or 11 months, and so were presumably making something. I must not say how much better we are than at the twenty-third month of the last war, nor how our output compares with the peak of the last war, because it is contended conditions have changed. Well, Sir, this is rather easy money for the critics. A handful of Members can fill a couple of days' Debate with

disparaging charges against our war effort, and every ardent or disaffected section of the Press can take it up, and the whole can cry a dismal cacophonous chorus of stinking fish all round the world. But no answer must be made, nothing must be said to show the giant war effort, the prodigy of national zeal, which excites the astonishment of friend and foe, which will command the admiration of history, and which has kept us alive.
I defy these tyrannical prohibitions. I intend to make comparisons, both with the Dunkirk datum period and with the similar and peak periods of the last war. Despite all the troubles I have enumerated, the Ministry of Supply output in the last three months has been one-third greater than in the three months of the Dunkirk period. Though our Navy, Army and Air Force are larger, the Ministry has one-third more people working in its factories. Thus, despite dilution, dispersion, reduced food, the blackout, and all the troubles I have described, each man is turning out, on the whole, each day, as much as he did in that time of almost superhuman effort. Let me present the balance-sheet. One-third more workers and one-third more output is quits. But all the adverse factors I have described have somehow or other been cancelled out by superior development of our machinery and organisation. We have made, in the last three months, more than twice the field guns we made in the Dunkirk period. The ammunition we are turning out is half as much again. The combined merchant and naval shipbuilding now in active progress is bigger, not only in scale but in current daily volume of execution, than it was at any period in the last war, and, of course, the work now is immeasurably more complex than it was then.
In aircraft production it is foolish to calculate only by the number of machines, though these have largely increased, because one machine takes 5,000 man-hours, and another, 75,000 man-hours. Judged, however, either by the test of numbers or man-hours eventuating in aircraft production, the increase even above the spurt period of a year ago is substantial. The increase since this Government took office is enormous, and I should be proud to tell the Committee what it is. I am not going to do so, because the enemy do not tell us their figures, much as we should


like to have them. The Committee must, therefore, be content with my assurance that progress and expansion on a great scale are continuous, and are remorselessly spurred on. This progress has been accomplished under the fire of the enemy, under air assault, which Hitler was led to believe would shatter our industries and reduce us to impotence and subjection. It has been done in spite of the difficulties of dispersion, and has been done not only with no sacrifice in quality but with a gain in quality, both actual and relative. Now that the air battles are developing again in scale and intensity we can claim that our fighters are at least as much ahead of the enemy as when we defeated him a year ago. As for the bombers, in the year that has passed, in British production alone, taking no account of the now rapidly expanding United States imports, we have doubled our power of bomb discharge on Germany at 1,500 miles range, and in the next three months, though this time taking account of the American reinforcements, we shall double it again. In the six months after that we shall redouble it. Besides all this we have ploughed the land, and, by the grace of God, have been granted the greatest harvest in living memory, perhaps the greatest we have ever known in these Islands. So much for comparison, with the high level of the Dunkirk period.
Now I turn to some comparisons with the last war. That was a terrible war. It lasted 52 months; there was frightful slaughter; there was an immense British effort; there was a complete final victory. We are now in the twenty-third month. We have lost large stocks of equipment on the beaches of Dunkirk, our food has been rationed, our meat reduced, we have been bombed and blacked out, and yet, even in this seventh quarter of the war, our total output of war-like stores has been nearly twice as great as our total output of production in the corresponding seventh quarter of the last war, and has equalled our production in the fourteenth and culminating quarter of the last war. We have rather more workers in the metal industry than we had then. When all those now working to complete and equip our new factories become available, and the Ministry of Labour has completed its task of collecting workers from unessential industries, we shall produce even more. But to reach in two years the level only achieved in the fourth year of the last war

is, I venture to submit, an achievement which deserves something better than flouts and jeers.
We are told how badly labour is behaving, and then a lot of people who never did a day's hard work in their lives are out after them. Again I claim to look back to the last war. In that war we had many bitter and devastating strikes, and in the final two years nearly 12,000,000 working days were lost through labour disputes. So far, in the whole 23 months of this war, we have lost less than 2,000,000 days. I was anxious to have the latest information about trade disputes in the country. I received, a few minutes before I rose to speak, a report that at 11 o'clock to-day there was no stoppage of work of any kind arising from a trade dispute in any part of Great Britain.
It is the fashion nowadays to abuse the Minister of Labour. He is a workman, a trade union leader. He is taunted with being an unskilled labourer representing an unskilled union. I daresay he gives offence in some quarters; he has his own methods of speech and action. He has a frightful load to carry; he has a job to do which none would envy. He makes mistakes, like I do, though not so many or so serious—he has not got the same opportunities. At any rate he is producing, at this moment, though perhaps on rather expensive terms, a vast and steady volume of faithful effort, the like of which has not been seen before. And if you tell me that the results he produces do not compare with those of totalitarian systems of government and society, I reply by saying, "We shall know more about that when we get to the end of the story."
I daresay that some of our critics will not like this kind of talk. They call it complacency. Living in comparative idleness, they wish to lash the toilers of body and mind to further exertions. To state facts which are true and encouraging is to be accused of a cheap and facile optimism. Our critics do not like it; neither do the Germans, but for different reasons. But I consider that if, for days on end, the whole national effort is disparaged and insulted, and if, all over the world, we are depicted by our friends and countrymen as slack, rotten and incompetent, we are


entitled, nay, it becomes a pressing duty, to restore the balance by presenting the truth.
A number of Votes have been put down as a basis of this Debate. I do not think I shall be out of Order if I place our discussion in its relation to the general aspects of the war before we separate for a short Recess, during which Members will be able to regain contact with their constituents and Ministers to give undivided attention to their work. When I look out upon the whole tumultuous scene of this ever-widening war, I feel it my duty to conclude by giving a very serious warning to the House and to the country. We must be on our guard equally against pessimism and against optimism. There are, no doubt, temptations to optimism. It is the fact that the mighty Russian State, so foully and treacherously assaulted, has struck back with magnificent strength and courage, and is inflicting prodigious and well-deserved slaughter for the first time upon the Nazi armies. It is the fact that the United States, the greatest single Power in the world, is giving us aid on a gigantic scale and advancing in rising wrath and conviction to the very verge of the war. It is the fact that the German air superiority has been broken, and that the air attacks on this country have for the time being almost ceased. It is the fact that the Battle of the Atlantic, although far from won, has, partly through American intervention, moved impressively in our favour. It is the fact that the Nile Valley is now far safer than it was 12 months ago or three months ago. It is the fact that the enemy has lost all pretence of theme or doctrine, and is sunk ever deeper in moral and intellectual degradation and bankruptcy, and that almost all his conquests have proved burdens and sources of weakness.
But all these massive towering facts, which we are entitled to dwell on, must not lead us for a moment to suppose that the worst is over. The formidable power of Nazi Germany, the vast mass of destructive munitions that they have made or captured, the courage, skill and audacity of their striking forces, the ruthlessness of their centralised war-direction, the prostrate condition of so many great peoples under their yoke, the re-

sources of so many lands which may to some extent become available to them—all these restrain rejoicing and forbid the slightest relaxation. It would be madness for us to suppose that Russia or the United States is going to win this war for us. The invasion season is at hand. All the Armed Forces have been warned to be at concert pitch by 1st September and to maintain the utmost vigilance meanwhile. We have to reckon with a gambler's desperation. We have to reckon with a criminal who by a mere gesture has decreed the death of 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 of Russian and German soldiers. We stand here still the champions. If we fail, all fails, and if we fall, all will fall together. It is only by a superb, intense and prolonged effort of the whole British Empire that the great combination of about three-quarters of the human race against Nazidom will come into vehement and dynamic life. For more than a year we have been all alone: all alone, we have had to guard the treasure of mankind. Although there have been profound and encouraging changes in the situation, our own vital and commanding responsibilities remain undiminished; and we shall discharge them only by continuing to pour out in the common cause the utmost endeavours of our strength and virtue and, if need be, to proffer the last drop of our heart's blood.

Mr. Erskine Hill: We have just heard a speech which I think will long remain with all of us. It is not easy to follow a speech of that sort by making new suggestions even though meant constructively. The Prime Minister told us that he welcomed constructive criticism, and I assure him that any criticism that I make will be along those lines. I am not one of those who think that our war effort should be despised or that all workers, employers, and indeed all the citizens of this country, have not played a great part. But it is important that we should consider not only what has been done, but how we can bring about improvements. It may be that the percentage of efficiency is not so high as my hon. Friend who was referred to in the Debate suggested, or that production has descended so low. It may be that the work we are doing is more satisfactory. But I am sure that it would be the wish of the Prime Minister that we should all get together and consider whether we can


make a greater effort and whether we can improve our system. One must look not only to the aspect which was closely dealt with by the Prime Minister, but to the actual machinery in the Ministry itself, to see whether that can be improved.
It seems to me a mistake, which we cannot rectify at this stage altogether, that the system has been built up upon a Civil Service which was good in peacetime, which was the best that could be got together, and which had traditions of the highest possible order. I cannot feel that we ought not to consider why we may not be reaching that 100 per cent. which we would desire to attain. Is the machine at fault or is it the staffing of that machine? I would say that it is obviously both. Our Civil Service was conceived and evolved for small-scope peace-time operations when the production of the nation was the work of private effort. You have to build up on that to a much higher stage, it seems to me. For those purposes, while the Civil Service was admirable, I venture to think that there is in war-time something to be desired. You cannot, I admit, alter that in war-time. The change is too great, but there is something you can do. When you come to the other side of the case, the personnel, it seems to me that the standards of the Civil Service should be put on the basis of efficiency. You cannot do that unless you insist that for the time being, as the workers have been willing to concede their trade union regulations, as the employers have been willing to make every concession they can, as the middle-class shopkeepers have been called upon to make concessions greater probably than those made in any other sphere, the Civil servant should play his part. I suggest that the Civil servant would be only too anxious to do so, and would be willing to depart from some of those rules which seem to me to make for inefficiency. It is essential, and this country will insist upon it, that there should be no favoured circles, where if a man fails he can be kicked upstairs, or at any rate kicked only along the passage.
The country demands that for the time being promotion should be by merit and not by seniority. It is difficult to say these things, knowing the high traditions of the Civil Service, and the important part they have played, but I think something might bed one in that direction

which would actually strengthen the working of a Ministry of Production and other Departments. These defects could be cured if promotion was altered and the question of dismissal for inefficiency during the war was taken into account. What is the fault? There are many excellent Civil servants, but there are a number who do not think for themselves. There are the "Yes-men" and the "No-men," who are only too willing to obstruct, and there are the officials who cannot make up their own minds. The national effort will be impeded unless the ordinary rules are altered for the period of the war.
I should like to say a word about the most vital question facing a Ministry of Production. The thing this country wants at the moment, bearing in mind the great dangers we have to face, are more tanks and guns. You cannot have a better policy than the Government's short-dated policy of getting as many tanks and guns as we can produce during the next few months. I think we are in grave danger. The Russian situation may be better than many of us feared, but it stands out as a menace to us. If anything happens there suddenly, and the tiger springs back, we shall be in mortal danger again. For that reason I agree with the policy of the Government in putting in a peculiarly active Minister to look after this Ministry. I agree with the policy of three members on the Tank Board. This number will be better than 13 for getting things done quickly. I do not know anything about them personally, except that everything I have heard leads me to think they will be active. But there have been delays. I know of many instances where tank production has been held up. A suggestion has been made by one works that there should be some simplification, and the Tank Board has been asked to consider it. The answer comes back, "Do nothing to these tanks for four or five weeks. Do not proceed with the work until we have made up our minds." I could give the Minister instances of this if they were required. The result is that until you get decision, work is held up. There must be quick decision when decision is wanted.
There is another thing I would like to say on this question of production. What


worries a great many people in industry is the inordinate number of forms which have to be filled up. I know the Ministry are trying to do their best, but I would ask them to think again and see whether they cannot have simplified forms and reduce their numbers. With short staffs and other difficulties, the responsibility of filling up forms, however necessary, is one which ought to be dispensed with wherever possible. In the memorandum issued in response to a letter by Sir Ronald Matthews, President of the British Chambers of Commerce, that point was raised, and a promise was given that the Ministry would look into it. I hope they will, because this seems to be one of the ways by which you can give less work to the staff. This war can only be won by 100 per cent. effort on the part of everybody, and I hope the Government will be content with nothing less, whether it be from heads of Departments or the workers in the Departments themselves. We can only get that when there is complete discontent with anything but a high standard of efficiency and by rising above questions of class distinction. We have put away 90 per cent. of this question; let us put it away altogether. We must lay down a standard applied to everyone that there must be no inefficiency anywhere and that any inefficiency will be dealt with ruthlessly and effectively. The Prime Minister is a great leader, and he deserves the weapons with which he can lead us to victory.
The test which ought always to be applied is one of results. I think the appointment of a man of extreme energy to this Ministry is excellent. My right hon. Friend the present President of the Board of Trade was excellent too when he was at the Ministry of Supply. Let us not be afraid to judge by results. Let us not be afraid to see there is no more toleration because a man is a nice fellow. The national interest is the only test which must be allowed to obtain. Only in that way shall we allow our Prime Minister to lead us to the victory we all so much desire.

Colonel Colville (Midlothian and Peebles): We have listened to a stimulating and reassuring statement from the Prime Minister. If I may say so, had a speech of that calibre been made at

the conclusion of the Debate three weeks ago, the cry of stinking fish to which the right hon. Gentleman referred would not have gone round the world. The Prime Minister concluded his speech to-day by a timely warning to the House against complacency on this important matter. I feel that the fact that this important matter has been raised is of value, and I agree with him that it is proper that our great effort should be known and focussed as it has been focussed to-day. The subject of production is absolutely vital. It is Germany's start in war production which gave her successes rather than any individual merits on the part of her fighting men. I disagree with the proposal made by some hon. Members that there should be a Minister of Production. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with that proposal, and he gave as one of his principal reasons—I thought he put it very high—for rejecting the proposal the question of personality. I do not think that should be the principal reason. If, in fact, the proposal itself were desirable and if it were impossible to find a master Minister to control Lord Beaverbrook, the Prime Minister would have two courses open to him, one to remove Lord Beaverbrook from the Ministry, and the other to make him the master Minister. But the Prime Minister does not agree that it is a desirable proposal, and I am in agreement with him.
My reasons for opposing the proposal for a separate Minister of Production are these. In the first place, let us be clear that it would not be a Minister for long; there would be a Ministry. No Minister ever works alone for more than 10 minutes; he soon gather round him an advisory staff, and then follows the great paraphernalia which is necessary to uphold a Ministry of rank and importance, and, shortly, there is another Department in being. I speak with knowledge and confidence when I say that the industries of this country do not want another Ministry at the present time. If production were regarded as an expert science outside the responsibility of the Ministries which have to secure supplies for their services, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, I believe that the responsibility of those Departments would be lessened, and that the new Ministry would tend to become a check or a filter


rather than a spur to their activities. That system would not work in an industrial concern. To make one director alone the expert on production, having no responsibility for the other phases of activity—for design, for labour, for supply—would not make for smooth running. No, Sir, the Departments must have that responsibility in full and must exercise it. Therefore, the super imposition of a new Department—for that is, in fact, what I believe it would become—would not help us at this stage. There must, of course, be the machinery for giving final decisions as to priorities which the Prime Minister has outlined to the Committee.
I want now to make one or two criticisms on the way in which certain Departments at present discharge their functions. The supply side of the War Office, that is, the Ministry which supplies the Army with its main requirements, has in my view not developed such satisfactory arrangements with industry as have the Admiralty or the Ministry of Aircraft Production. As the Prime Minister said, that is to some extent due to the fact that the Army's growth has been more rapid and recent through a period of rapid change and quick expansion. The Admiralty have had long and tried connections with industry which are now working as satisfactorily as they did in the last war. But the Ministry of Aircraft Production have had to deal with the problem of rapid and changing production, and to my mind they have been more successful than the Ministry of Supply in adapting themselves to the problem. I do not want to make sweeping statements, because I know that the Ministry of Supply have had an immense measure of success in their difficult task, but I maintain that there are points on which they could learn and take an example from what is done by other Ministries.
For instance, to give some illustrations, the difficulties experienced by manufacturers in the aircraft industry owing to changes of design have been considerable, but they have not been so great, I believe, as those of the manufacturers working on tanks for the War Office. The changes in design, both in defensive armaments and in weapons, have caused considerable, and I believe, preventible, delays in the output of tanks. Obviously, I can-

not go into details in this Debate, but I hope that with the machinery which has been set up, an improvement is already taking place. Another direction in which the manufacturers are having some difficulty with the Ministry is in the matter of testing. I am referring to the testing of metals, such as special steels. The Admiralty have their own staff of inspectors, and as I have said, their long contact with industry has led to smooth running. The Ministry of Aircraft Production generally work on the principle that, having decided on the firm which is to carry out the work for them, they select and approve of someone in the firm to be their representative and carry out the tests to their specifications, and this system works satisfactorily. On the other hand, the Ministry of Supply for the War Department almost always insist on the tests being carried out by their own staff, and from time to time there are considerable delays in having the materials tested. This is a point of detail rather than of general principle, but it is a most important point, which I hope will be looked into. The Prime Minister referred to many firms which work only for one Ministry or Service, but equally there are great firms and combines which work for all Services and have experience of all methods, and it is on the basis of that experience that my suggestions are offered.
With regard to priorities, I agree that the present machinery ought to be effective, and I was interested to hear the Prime Minister say that no major question of priority is in dispute at the moment. I will offer this observation, however; no doubt it is essential that the highest priority should go to the Ministry of Aircraft Production, as control of the air has proved the key to success not only in land, but in sea operations, but I am bound to say that I am disturbed at the low degree of priority which appears almost invariably to be given to Army supplies as compared with those for the other Services. Obviously, in a public Debate I cannot give specific instances, but I would like to discuss the matter with the Minister concerned. From my experience during the last 12 months in connection with the building up and training of the Home Guard, I can say that the degree to which that force has been equipped through the Ministry of


Supply is no small achievement; it is, indeed, a very great achievement. The Home Guard is now a force to be reckoned with in the matter of armament. Nevertheless, there have been points of priority both in relation to imports and home production in which it has been found impossible to get any further, and it would appear that the degree of priority accorded to a wide range of Army requirements comes fairly well behind that of the other two Services.
If the Committee accept the view, as I have not the slightest doubt they will, that a new Ministry of Production would not, in fact, accelerate production, I hope that the Government will not go away with the idea that everybody is fully content with the present state of affairs. We have been stimulated and reassured by the Prime Minister's statement, but the Prime Minister is the last person to wish us to fall into a state of complacency. I believe that with the existing machinery an early improvement can be looked for, and I believe that a greater national effort from all is still possible. The Prime Minister referred to the immense spurt that followed Dunkirk, a spurt which he wisely said one could not expect to be maintained indefinitely, though we have now reached a higher rate of production through expansion; but when one looks back to the time following Dunkirk, everybody—and I refer to all sides of industry and not to one side only—was making an immense personal effort.
I wonder whether that degree of effort is still with us. Evidence that perhaps it is not comes to us in curious ways. Recently, I had experience of an exercise one part of which was to test security, and it was found that a very large number of people had not their identity cards with them, not for any sinister reason, but from pure carelessness. It may be asked what that has to do with production. The point is that one would not have found such a thing in the months following Dunkirk, and I do not think the same state of alertness and effort exists to-day as was the case at that time. I would point out, in passing, that no-one got through without a card, and that all those without had to report to police stations to prove their identity, so that should give little confidence to a fifth columnist who might think he could easily slip through. I

mention this, however, as an indication that the whole country does not realise the degree of alertness and of effort still required. The picture painted by the Prime Minister is one which, I know, will have the widest publicity. It shows the great magnitude of our production effort and should spur us on. Just over a year ago the present Government was formed to give representation, on an adequate scale, to all parties in the State. There joined that Government Ministers with very great experience of industry, from both the managerial and labour sides, who gave hope to the people of this country that they would be able to secure the maximum effort in its broadest sense from industry. There is still much scope for their capacity in the months to come.

Mr. John Wilmot (Kennington): I would not have ventured to take part in this Debate but for the fact that the small experience T have had in production during the war has led me to believe there are certain disharmonies in harnessing to the work of national war production the diverse elements of a system of private industry. The Prime Minister said that almost all firms to-day were under Government control—all those, at any rate, which were engaged on any kind of major war work. He stated that the field of this control was continually widening and that as need arose more and more were regimented. It seems to me that in carrying out this colossal operation disharmony must inevitably arise, and it is to that point that I wish to direct the attention of the Committee. The board of directors of a limited company engaged wholly upon war-time production find themselves in many instances in a curiously dual position. No doubt after victory has been won there will be differing opinions on various sides of the House as to what is the best or the most ideal form of industrial management and control, and we shall continue as we always do to debate, modify and compromise in our search for the best. This is not the time to debate these academic questions, because we have now to attain in the shortest possible time the maximum production from the present machine.
It seems to me that the position of the management of a limited company is extremely difficult. They have the overwhelming loyalty to the State to produce from their machinery, plant and the


workmen under their management the maximum output regardless of all other circumstances. But side by side with that they have not been relieved of their legal and moral obligations to the owners of their capital. Anyone engaged in day-today industrial management will realise how often and in how many diverse aspects this duality is a hampering circumstance, and various devices have been invented in an attempt to circumvent it. In some instances Government controllers, with limited and partial authority, have been placed inside the works. The contract system by which firms compete by tender for contracts is still in operation, and there is the Excess Profits Tax to put a limit on excessive war profits. Necessary and desirable as it is to limit the profits arising from war conditions, I think the operation of the contract system and the absence of direct profit motive is very often inequitable and hampering. Over and over again one must come across instances where managements find themselves caught between these dual loyalties. The loyalty to their shareholders requires them to look beyond the war to the conditions in which they will find themselves in competitive industry after the war. The Committee will see at once that there is a much more urgent and compelling loyalty, but at the same time the legal obligation of the directors remains. It seems to me that it would be advisable to consider when a firm is engaged wholly upon war production whether those in charge should not be relieved from the embarrassment of that dual position, and for the duration of the war, at any rate, be placed in a position where they have one loyalty and one loyalty only, and that is loyalty to the State.
Circumstances are arising every day which compel attention to this aspect. A manufacturer was telling me the other day that for certain reasons he has recently moved his factory into an area where there is a plentiful supply of female labour. He tells me he could quite conveniently employ large numbers of women and save wear and tear upon his valuable and irreplaceable automatic machinery. That would certainly be to his advantage if he looks forward to industrial competition after the war, when he would have his machinery unimpaired, but to-day it would exhaust the supply of available labour in a way which would be directly

contrary to the interests of war production as a whole. That seems to me to be one instance of the effect of this duality. Its effect is also to be seen on the workers in the factories. They have been urged, and they have agreed, to give up and to waive for the duration of the war their old-established and hardly-won trade union conditions and practices. They have done this in order the more adequately and speedily to achieve victory, but in the smaller and more out of the way parts of our industrial machine there is always the lingering feeling that they are, in part, making this sacrifice for the old management, which they remember as being the persons in pursuit of private profit. It may be that the operations of the taxation system have taken away that objection, but undoubtedly that feeling remains in the minds of the workers, and it is certainly a hampering consideration in securing maximum output.
I have seen in recent months a considerable wastage of time and machinery as the result of an intermittent flow of orders coming into various industrial establishments, A contract is proceeded with at full blast, and an effective and efficient team of machines and workers is assembled and got in production. The contract is completed, and nothing takes its place. The men are discharged and drafted off on other work and into other localities, and in a week or a fortnight a fresh contract is placed. The utmost urgency is attached to it, but the firm finds itself now denuded of workers, its plant standing idle, and no one can be obtained to operate it. The invaluable team which has been built up for that particular job in that particular way has been dissipated and lost, and very valuable time is spent building it all up again, in order to do a precisely similar job on a new contract. It would be an immense economy if some system could be devised whereby there was not this gap when the whole mechanism was broken up and dispersed. It seems to me that it is at this stage in the detailed application of the broad principles which the Prime Minister has shown have been so successful—it is in attention to those details that we can drive our production ahead to the maximum.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: I was very pleased indeed when the Prime Minister informed us of the Government's de-


cision to have another day's Debate on production. If the two days' Debate had taken place last year, it would have resulted in a change of Government. The present Ministry, if not a Ministry of all the talents, is certainly a Ministry of all the critics—or most of them. All the critics could not be absorbed immediately, when the change took place. Many of them were included to make the Government a Government of all parties, and there were many purely political appointments. Some of the appointees seem to have been only qualified successes, and I think I can say without fear of very much contradiction that some have not come up to their political reputations and have proved to be labourers not worthy of their hire. If the two days' Debate has proved one thing more than another, it has shown that, whilst it may possibly have done a minimum amount of good in this country, it certainly has done harm abroad. It has given the enemy every reason to rejoice. Outside this country people do not understand our methods of freespeech—and I have always maintained that we should speak less freely in war-time than in peace-time—not only we in the House, but the newspapers and the general public. The enemy is listening all the time, and our friends, too. Our friends take us too literally, whilst the enemy notes and gloats and takes our troubles too optimistically.
I have always found Ministers as anxious as any of us to put things right. Although I do not believe in suppressing free speech and criticism, I think we can and do exaggerate and magnify our troubles and scarify ourselves. In peacetime we can truly say we have stocks of almost everything. We have only to ask for goods and pay for them to get them. In war-time we have stocks of nothing. We are always short, owing to increased demands for every single item, from a bolt or a screw or a nut to the heaviest piece of machinery, or even to a pint of beer. Some of the critics of the Government—the "leftovers "—cannot forget their peace-time political habits, and, of course, Ministers are where they are because we all belong to the Ancient Order of Stone-Throwers. Ministers welcome constructive criticism in these days, when our lives and the

future of the State are in the balance. There is only one thing to be done, and that is for us all to work together, to stick together and to stick to work. In my view certain Members, with the best intentions, have joined forces and formed themselves into a sort of unofficial "Ministry for the Co-ordination of Offence" —criers of stinking fish in the market place. This I believe is unnecessary and a wee bit wrongheaded. It does not produce more guns, ships or tanks. These efforts do not give anyone confidence.
I recently attended a meeting called by two Members of the House to meet representative shop stewards from a number of munitions factories engaged in war work, ostensibly to "give instances of delay and inefficiency in organisation leading to the impeding of production." I was surprised to see how very young many of these shop stewards are and how little experience they can possibly have had in this so-called skilled work which they are doing, and still less of the intricate working of a factory. But it was quite evident that they were all now, thank God, in dead earnest to put in their best efforts to win the war. I listened carefully and asked a number of questions, and I could see that many of these men before the war and since had been affected by outside influences. They have been misled and misinformed, and, as I thought, they had not yet quite got a fair and complete perspective of the scene, They seemed disposed to lay about them mercilessly, claiming the delinquencies and inefficiency of the managements in organising production, and unable quite to rid their minds of peace-time prejudices and predelections. The same attitude applies in some cases to the managements as regards labour.
Letters to the Press and speakers in this House show the enormous and endless difficulties with which the managements have to contend. Every item they produce, besides being in short supply, is, so to speak, wrapped up in a whole series of papers. A study should be made of how to cut out some of the clogging, time-wasting demands of the octopus and hidebound bureaucracy which is living on the fat of the land, or as much as they can get, and producing nothing. I pointed out to the shop stewards that we must not forget that there have been millions of tons of shipping lost; towns have been


blitzed and factories damaged and destroyed, that railways have been damaged and transport delayed; and that, in spite of all the damage done, those without much experience and with a limited viewpoint, however anxious to help their country, must clear their minds of peace-time vision and predeliction and must not criticise unfairly. Many of these men must have been schooled into the idea that our economic and political system is wrong and that as a consequence all sorts of troubles and faults arise. During the speeches it became clear that many of the old-established businesses of which they spoke, with their practical knowledge and traditions, have an enormous advantage over the newer factories put up for war purposes. There is no doubt that this affects production and cannot be overcome at the start or acquired in a day.
I asked the shop stewards to remember that, even if everything had been perfectly planned, these war incidents must undoubtedly at times create difficulties, even bottle-necks, changes of direction, loss of materials, shortages here and sometimes over-supplies there; and on top of all this we have the ever-increasing demands on every industry in the country connected with war work. We are all the time working against time and destruction. The Germans had seven years' preparation and had accumulated reserves which they are now dissipating much faster than they can replace them, and the same troubles must be coming to them while we are now overcoming ours. We cannot expect 100 per cent. production at any time, much less under war conditions. It seems to me that to make calculations of exact theoretical percentages under these conditions is to use false values, seeing that there is no such thing as 100 per cent. perfection and that a certain incalculable amount of shortage must be due to causes over which neither the workers nor the managements have any control.
I believe it would pay the Prime Minister, who is our plus V. broadcaster to speak to the shop stewards and workers over the air in order to encourage them and to say how much he appreciates what they are doing and are prepared to do; and at the same time to talk to the managements and ask them to cast aside all peace-time prejudices and to keep in close touch with their workpeople so that men and women could be encouraged

to understand their position and to put in their best work. It is important that in every factory in the land not only the managements but the workers should know how much depends on every man and woman working. If they were satisfied that difficulties and delays were sometimes inevitable and were not due to bad management, they would work together to minimise the troubles and to overcome them as far as possible. What is wanted, above all, is to nationalise mutual confidence between workers and management which is so obvious in some firms and wholly lacking in others. It is evident that the old-established firms with their traditions and experience have great advantage over the newer firms put up for war purposes, but I believe that confidence can be forthcoming throughout industry and that it can give us the increased production we want. The less recrimination and destructive criticism the better. There should be no victimisation of managements, shop stewards or other workers. The attention of the Ministers concerned should be called to specific cases. All parties concerned should be given the opportunity to know what the country expects of them, and they should be given the opportunity of putting into practice the only remedy for our troubles—to work together, to stick together and to stick to work.
Lord Beaverbrook has been mentioned. From what I have heard and read of that gentleman he gets things done ruthlessly and regardless of consequences. The Prime Minister knows him and trusts him. No doubt he says to himself, "I want aeroplanes now. I want tanks now. I will get them by hook or by crook or by Beaverbrook, and Beaverbrook gets them." I have a feeling that we can thank Providence there are not Beaverbrook quads—or worse still, quintuplets —each ruthlessly getting on with his job at all costs. One Beaverbrook may be able to stand, but four or five of them would produce chaos. The Admiralty seems to get what it wants by less violent and disturbing methods.
I want to make what, I believe is a practical suggestion. It is that when the House goes into Recess, Members should take a busmen's holiday and that each one of us who receives complaints should himself go and see the manufacturers and


workers and talk to them, explain our position and try to straighten things out. See what might be accomplished if 400 or 500 of us lent a helping hand in this way instead of limiting ourselves merely to being letter boxes to receive complaints or loud speakers to voice them. Nothing short of sticking together, working together and sticking to work will see us through. I see that the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) is present. I have spoken of him as the unofficial Minister of Moans. To-day he seems to be a sort of Lord High Execrationer. No doubt he acts with the best intention and as a strong supporter of the Government, but I hope that nothing I have said will help the enemy and that the hon. Member's execrations will be directed direct to Ministers in their capacity as Ministers because the enemy gloats when speeches and questions of this sort are delivered in the House. The last thing any of us would wish to do is to give information to the enemy.

Sir Percy Harris (Bethnal Green, South-West): I think anybody who heard the speech of the Prime Minister on our war production will agree that this extra day's Debate—an exceptional thing—has been well worth while. Criticism of our productive effort, from whatever side it comes, must not be interpreted as an attack upon either the Government in general or the Prime Minister in particular. I am convinced that the one man who is indispensable to victory is the Prime Minister, not only because of his immense influence in our own country and the confidence which the mass of the people have in his personality, but on account of his great influence in the United States of America and throughout our Dominions. There is no alternative Prime Minister. He has no rival. It was very different in the last war. I was a Member of Parliament for at least two years in the last war. Both our war-time Prime Ministers then had half-a-dozen rivals for the post. When Mr. Asquith was Prime Minister I remember the lobbying and the canvassing of names that went on, and even when the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was Prime Minister there were always in the public mind the names of three or four men who could have filled his place if the need arose. There was,

of course, Mr. Asquith himself, there was another ex-Prime Minister then sitting in the House, Mr. Balfour, there was Mr. Bonar Law and, of course, the present holder of the office.
The present Prime Minister reigns supreme, and no one who wants to win the war wishes to disparage his efforts or to suggest that he is, in any way, lacking in those gifts so necessary to guide the country in these difficult times. But I think he would be the first to agree that no one has a monopoly of wisdom. Each of us in this Committee has a responsibility to make his contribution. Mere carping criticism, mere fault-finding, is easy when we see flaws here and there, but if we have criticism to make it should always be of a constructive character. I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about the great efforts made, particularly after Dunkirk, I should like next to pay a special tribute to the women. We hear a lot of what the women did in the last war. As far as I can see, it is nothing to what they are doing in many parts of the country in this war. I am not referring to their work as bus-conductors or porters but to their work in the munition factories. I have seen women doing foundry work of a heavy character—refined women who had never done rough work in their lives handling heavy materials and doing jobs of a most dangerous character.
Although I agree with the Prime Minister about the in advisibility of quoting percentages, I am convinced that we are still a long way below our peak in production. I think that is a good thing, and should be an encouragement, because we want our enemies to realise, and our friends to appreciate, that we can do still more if we strengthen our organisation, in the light of the great experience gained during the last two years. We started late in the race, and it is difficult to make up leeway except by a terrific spurt. There was a terrific spurt a year ago, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, but we want more of those spurts if we are to reach the peak of our production. After all, the Ministry of Supply was started only one month before the war—two years too late. I remember a speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, I think in 1937, pressing for the production of jigs and tools.


If his advice had been followed, some of the difficulties and problems which Ministers of Supply have had to face would have been largely prevented.
There is another factor which we ought not to ignore. When war broke out we had hardly recovered from 10 years of industrial depression. You cannot have the luxury of 2,000,000 idle men and expect to resume all at once efficient industrial production. The engineering and shipbuilding trades were special sufferers in that depression. Many of the more enterprising spirits in those trades left them for other occupations. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has made gallant efforts to seduce them back. But it is one thing for a man to leave an industry and quite another thing to get him back into his old job; and we must also recollect that many of those who remained in the shipbuilding and engineering trades lost a lot of their mechanical and industrial skill owing to long periods of idleness. The same consideration applies to managers, foremen and charge-hands. Such workers cannot be made in a minute. Anyone who knows anything about industry knows that they have to be discovered, and trained. Even under the pressure of war you cannot always put your hands on the right men to fill gaps in the ranks of managers, foremen and charge-hands.
It is the same with contractors. During the slumps of 1922 and 1929 many big industrial undertakings changed hands, and in place of trained directors with an inner knowledge of the industry—often an hereditary knowledge—there came in as directors financiers whose concern primarily was to look after the financial interests of the shareholders. That is a factor which we cannot ignore, but what I have heard from men in some areas is rather sinister. The new directors that have been brought into industry for financial reasons, are rarely seen by the employees because their visits are few and far between. Generally, their visits are monthly and then only to look after the financial interests of the shareholders or the banks.
We have to realise all these things when we are talking about increasing our production, but in spite of them we still have some of the finest yards, factories,

workshops and mechanics in the world. Of course, generalisation is dangerous, and conditions vary from factory to factory and from workshop to workshop. Where there is fault it is difficult to apportion blame between management and men. I am a member of a Select Committee to which the Prime Minister referred, but perhaps my sub-committee is one of the more cautious ones. It is reluctant to rush into print and publish reports, but it has been about the country studying on the spot the work of the factories and shipyards. Perhaps even more important, it has been interviewing managers and men. Upon the Committee we have not confined our efforts to the orthodox channels. We have encouraged people from outside to come to us and give us information. On the one hand we have received serious evidence of lack of planning and bad progress, and, on the other, of bad timekeeping. Every sub-committee has had similar evidence and you cannot divorce the two problems. In failure to dovetail a job responsibility starts at the very top, and goes right down to the men.
We have had evidence of men hanging about because of bad organisation and because the planning of their industries had not been well thought out. This is brought about largely through weaknesses at the very top. It applies equally to men on piecework or the bonus system and to men on hourly jobs. The men are discontented and they find it difficult to understand why there should be slack time. I do not want the impression to get around that this is universal. It varies from place to place. One of the very serious causes is that there is an impression in factories, workshops and shipyards that the work is being done upon a cost-plus basis. Men are saying, "It does not make much difference to the boss or the company because the Government have to pay." That is a thoroughly wrong principle, but human nature being what it is, it is very natural. It does not apply to all shipyards and factories alike, but varies from area to area and from unit to unit. If management is bad in peacetime and a shipyard or factory is badly run, it is very soon brought to account by competition, as it does not get orders and therefore goes to the wall. The position is quite different in war-time, when not only is there no competition, but


every factory is badly wanted and there is a shortage of plant and buildings.
The Government have a responsibility to level up the laggards and the lame ducks and to bring weak organisations up to the best standards. Managements should be pooled and weak ones weeded out. Much can be done by the exploitation of local sentiment. Take shipyards, for instance. There are certain obvious areas such as Clyde side, Merseyside, Tyneside and the Bristol Channel. There seems no reason why the Government, using their vast powers, should not bring the most competent men together in those areas, as is done in the concentration of industry, for instance in the cotton trade, and put the whole production area under one control. This would present a great opportunity for the exploitation of local sentiment. There is very strong local feeling that the best ships are built on the Clyde. There is equally strong local feeling that the best ships are built on the Merseyside; and the same can be said about Tyneside and other places. The local sentiment could be exploited and the various yards and machine shops brought up to one standard by utilising and organising the ability which would be at the Government's disposal. I believe it would result in increased production and improved planning and progressing in industry and that it would improve the organisation of labour. It would be a mistake if the Committee got the idea that private companies only are at fault. There have been great complaints of Government factories and the Prime Minister admitted the reports of want of foresight in making the necessary provision for housing, transport and food. It might be well to bring the private and the Government factories into more intimate association by making use of the best available ability and capacity
I was interested to hear the Prime Minister refer to that vexed word "priority," but he brushed aside, as a bit of a farce, the suggestion that there was competition between the Departments. Nevertheless, we have heard some very strange stories about representatives of one Department going down to a dockyard and "pinching" the supplies, machine-tools or materials needed for another Department, through over-zeal, no doubt. I am glad

to hear that those difficulties are being got over and that the Departments are a happy family working together without unhealthy competition. Still, rightly or wrongly, there is an absence of a long-term policy, and a feeling that we are thinking too much in terms of the needs and necessities of the moment. There was a great push for planes at the expense of tanks, and now there is a great tank "stunt" with a suspicion that it may be at the expense of shipbuilding. I suppose it is inevitable, human nature being what it is, that forceful personalities at the head of Departments shall naturally wish to assert the rights of their particular section in order to produce the goods they have undertaken to find. The Prime Minister made a challenge, and a very proper challenge. He said to the Committee, "You talk a lot about a Minister of Production—produce your man." I agree that that is a very right and proper challenge, and if we had half a dozen men of the calibre of the Prime Minister I think we should be able to answer it easily. But, just as the Prime Minister, as Defence Minister, co-ordinates the strategy of the three Services, I think the Committee will agree that it would be a great thing to have someone in a similar position to coordinate production for the three Services. We need some guiding hand to co-ordinate our effort and eliminate the feeling that very often our production is lopsided and is not thought out in the interests of the war as a whole.
I am very glad to see the Minister of Labour here. He has a difficult, and, I would like to add, a thankless task. No one envies him his job and no one accuses him of a lack of energy, enthusiasm or drive, but I do think there is a case for a properly thought-out wage policy. That in-testing White Paper published only the other day shows that his purpose is good and his objects sound, but when it comes to translate them into practice I am afraid he cannot claim at any rate this time an equal success. Obviously, if there is not enough material to go round and if wages go up, and if one section of industry has a lot of money to spend, it must run up prices, and I realise it wants courage to grasp the nettle. During the last war great courage was shown. I do not want to under-estimate the difficulties. One of the greatest tributes that could be paid to the present Minister of Labour was a


statement made to-day that there was no great industrial dispute at all. That is a great tribute to him, and if he has done nothing else he will have justified his occupation of his present position.
If we are to prevent inflation, if we are to keep prices at a steady level, the Minister will have to take a more active part and not leave it to sectional bargaining. He will have to recognise that a common standard is required in war-time if the burden of war is to be evenly spread. If one section, owing to special conditions and a special demand for their skill or owing to a shortage in their particular trade, gets a high standard of wages, it reacts right through the industry and causes discontent, and we well know that in certain sections very high wages are being paid, due maybe to the demands on those sections of employment. All I am pleading is that the great power and influence which the Minister has, has an intimate relation to the problem of inflation and the need to prevent the setting in motion of that spiral which we saw in the last war. In spite of the efforts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep down prices we still see an inevitable upward tendency. I believe the Minister would have the approval of labour and of trade unions, as well as of the whole House, if in the discharge of his duties he gave a real lead and put forward a clearer and more incisive labour and wages policy.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that workers are being paid at a standard rate, and that they only get what he calls large wages because some of them work twelve hours a day for seven days a week? Does he therefore suggest cutting down the wage rates or the hours of labour?

Sir P. Harris: I certainly do not suggest cutting down the rates of wages. I wish labour and the whole nation to have good real wages which depend on inflation being prevented. That is the fundamental thing, in the interests of labour, of women and of the whole community. It means that we should prevent the tendency of prices to move upwards, which, in spite of all our efforts in the way of subsidies and rationing, they are doing. I therefore say that I believe it to be in the best

interests of labour that a clearer and more incisive wage policy should be laid down by the Minister to protect the interests of the mass of the people, to prevent sectional increases, and to see that if there are increases they are general throughout the country. At a time like this it is vital to keep prices steady and stop inflation if we are to keep up the morale of the people and, above all, maintain the health and physical condition of the women and children.

Mr. Silkin: I am sure that the Committee must have listened to the Prime Minister's speech with very considerable satisfaction. It was indeed very gratifying to hear of the tremendous and successful efforts that we are making in the direction of the production of munitions. But I felt, right through the Prime Minister's speech, that he was not entirely directing himself to the criticisms which had been levelled—I think, quite properly, because it is a function of Parliament to make such criticisms. I think he did not direct himself to the criticism that, although great efforts had been made and increasing efforts were being made, the maximum effort was not yet being put forward, and that in fact it was possible for this country to make even greater efforts than it was making at the present time. The speeches of hon. Members in the Debate three weeks ago were, in the main, directed to that point, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) stated that the country was making not more than 75 per cent. of the efforts which it was possible to make, he was not in any way belittling the great efforts which were being made and will continue to be made.
I want to point to specific cases in which, I think, improvement could be made, and which are having the effect of reducing our effort below the maximum of which we are capable. The Prime Minister said that there was now no conflict between Departments, and that they were working smoothly and in the closest co-operation. He referred to the fact that there was complete agreement about their programmes. I do not think it has ever been suggested that there was any great dispute between Departments about their programmes. I do suggest that there is considerable difference of opinion, or competition, in the carrying


out of these programmes, and particularly in connection with dealing with labour.
I want to suggest something which is perfectly well known to every Member of the Committee, that is, that the Ministry of Aircraft Production has been, and still is, holding on unnecessarily to skilled labour which is necessary for other Departments. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour knows that there has been a survey of labour in the Ministry of Aircraft Production factories, and that hundreds, indeed thousands, of skilled workers have been found who are superfluous to the requirements of those factories. It may be that there have been reasons for holding on to these skilled workers. Perhaps they were being retained because it was thought that they might be needed, if orders and work came along, but I do suggest that the Ministry of Labour has ample machinery and labour for making use of these skilled workers during the time they are not being fully used in their own factories. He has power to transfer those workers to other factories where they are more needed. It can be done temporarily, until such time as the aircraft factories are ready to use these skilled men again. If that sort of thing goes on, if thousands of skilled workers are not being used to the fullest extent in the factories in which they are employed, it cannot be said that we are putting forward our maximum effort, and to the extent that that is true, our effort is being weakened.
Another direction in which labour is being misused is by the Ministry of Supply. The hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Ministry of Supply in the last Debate referred to the fact that there had been an agreement by which workers had been given priority, for certain Royal Ordnance factories, for a period of some' months, and that that period was extended. Owing to the fact that this period was limited, the Ministry of Supply made requirements for labour far in excess of what they really needed. In a number of factories there were far more workers than could be used, with the result that, in some cases, women were found to be knitting and men playing cards day after day. It is no use my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour shaking his head.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): There have been so many of these statements made. I would appeal to my hon. Friend to send me the names and addresses of these places in fairness to the management and the men. If hon. Members send them to me as Chairman of the Production Executive, I will have every case investigated.

Mr. Ness Edwards: That will be something new.

Mr. Silkin: I will let my right hon. Friend know. I can assure him that these statements are absolutely true, and have been verified. It is no use his shaking his head. They have been admitted by representatives of his own Department.

Mr. Bevin: If an hon. Member has found that in a factory, why has he not done his public duty, and sent particulars to the Minister in order that the Minister may investigate?

Mr. Silkin: I consider that I am doing my public duty in stating these facts here, to-day, and I shall do my public duty in making the proper use of the facts in the national interest. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware that I am not able to state in public where the factories are. It is perfectly true, and there is no dispute about it, that there are factories where more labour has been asked for than the factories could absorb, week after week, until the Minister of Labour ascertained the facts and reduced the supply of labour by half. In the meantime, there were hundreds of workers in a number of factories for whom no work was available. They could not be absorbed, partly because the equipment was not available, and secondly, because the Ministry of Supply had forgotten the fact that, when large numbers of workers are employed, supervisory staffs are needed, and they had not applied for the supervisory staffs I hope that is not going to be denied, because it is a fact.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Mac-millan): Is the hon. Member speaking of Royal Ordnance factories or of contracting factories?

Mr. Silkin: I am speaking of Royal Ordnance factories. Those are facts which, incidentally, I have ascertained


from representatives of the hon. Member's own Department.

Mr. Logan (Liverpool, Scotland Division): Has the hon. Member made any complaint to the Department?

Mr. Silkin: I am making my own speech.

Mr. Logan: I know the hon. Member is making his own speech, but I have a right to intervene and to ask what speech he is making. What does he mean by it?

Mr. Silkin: I have ascertained the facts only in the last few days.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Has the hon. Member communicated this information about staffing to my right hon. Friend or to me?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman knows I have not communicated with him.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is it any use?

Mr. Silkin: I have ascertained the facts by evidence from the hon. Gentleman's own Department. These facts are known to his own Department.

Mr. Bevin: May I ask whether this investigation was made by the hon. Member as a member of the Select Committee. If so, is not evidence given by our officials confidential until revealed to the Ministry and to the House of Commons?

Mr. Silkin: I am not disclosing details of the evidence. I am disclosing facts which are known. I consider that I am perfectly entitled to state the facts on this occasion.

Mr. Bevin: The hon. Member is in a privileged position.

Mr. Silkin: I turn from that point but I do submit that, if these facts are true, as I say, it does disclose a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and shows that we are not putting forward our maximum effort.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): Is the hon. Member talking about evidence given before the Select Committee on National Expenditure?

Mr. Silkin: It has been given.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is quite out of Order. The Report has not been published, and the evidence may not be discussed until that Report is laid before the House.

Mr. Silkin: I am very sorry, Colonel Clifton Brown. The Report is in draft. The next fact with which I wish to deal is the statement of the Prime Minister that the Priority Executive is now dissolved. There is no question that when a priority is given for a commodity, anything else is frozen out. I suggest that when a priority is given for a commodity and a factory say that they require, perhaps, 2,000 workers, no other factory making things in a lower priority can get any labour at all until those 2,000 workers have been provided. It may be— I quote this as an example—that there are half a dozen factories whose production is very greatly impeded because they need two or three men. If they could get those two or three men they could greatly increase their output, but, under instructions given to divisional controllers, or, at any rate, because of the way in which those instructions are interpreted by divisional controllers, any priority that is given must be fully satisfied before factories of lower priority are provided with labour. That may not be the desire of the right hon. Gentleman, but I suggest that he should investigate the position to satisfy himself that the prorities are being operated in the way he desires. I think a little inquiry will satisfy him that they are not.
It has been suggested that idle time in factories is a relatively small matter, but I am informed—and this is not based on evidence which has been given to the Select Committee—that in some of the Royal Ordnance factories men are idle for two or three weeks at a time, waiting for material, or for some other cause. I recognise that the difficulty over material is a serious one, but we are to-day acclimatised to the difficulty. I suggest it is time that we prepared for those difficulties which we know are likely to arise. One cannot help the non-arrival of material which has to come from America, but it is a factor that ought to be taken into consideration. I suggest also that there is considerable delay in transporting material from one place to


another, and that some of the delay is avoidable. Cases have been brought to my notice in which it has been necessary to transport materials very quickly, and it has been decided to use road instead of rail transport, for the sake of speed; but, having come to that decision, the Departments concerned have decided to invite tenders for transporting the material, which has caused some delay. Delay also arises in transport because of contradictory instructions given by different officials. The contractor may be ordered to send material by road and also to send it by rail. He is put in a difficulty, and does not send the material at all until he has ascertained which way he is to send it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into this question of transport. It would be very valuable if his transport organisation could be informed as long in advance as possible when it is necessary to transport goods.
I think production could be speeded up and increased, if considerably more attention were paid to the placing of contracts. I am informed that in certain areas far more contracts have been placed than the contractors are able to carry out in a reasonable time. I understand that these contracts are placed by the headquarters of the Ministry of Supply sometimes without consultation with the regional representatives, and that if there had been such consultation, the Ministry would have been informed that it was very difficult for the firms concerned to carry out the contracts. There is an area organisation which, I understand, was set up for the express purpose of advising the Ministry of Supply on the capacity of an area, but this organisation is not being used to the extent it could be. I have referred to the placing of contracts with firms which are quite incapable of carrying out the work because they have already too much in hand; there are also cases of contracts having been placed with firms which, by reason of their lack of organisation, their lack of machinery and their lack of experience, are unable to carry out the contracts.
I know of a firm which has a very small workshop, housing a few machine tools, run by a semi-skilled mechanic and a boy. This firm was given a contract of £100,000 to manufacture gun mountings, work which they had never done before, which

they are quite incapable of carrying out with their machinery or with the labour they have available. I suggest that if there had been consultation with the regional representatives the contract would not have been placed with that firm. I have mentioned some of the methods which I think would make for increased production. I suggest that what I have said justifies the work that the Select Committee is doing. I would like to assure my right hon. Friend that these criticisms are made in good faith, in the honest belief that they are true, with the sole desire to improve production, and in the hope that they will betaken in the spirit in which they are offered, and not in any carping spirit. I hope that this general Debate will have the same effect, because I am sure that there is no Member of the House who has any other desire than to help in this vitally important question of production.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne (Kidder-minster): We have heard to-day from the Prime Minister a most interesting and comprehensive speech dealing with the whole of our scheme of production of the munitions of war as the Government see it and from the point of view of what the Prime Minister considers is the extent of the effort of the country harnessed to win the war. I have no quarrel at all with that speech. I have no doubt it will be of great benefit if, indeed, any false impression has gone about in other countries as to the determination of everyone in this country to secure the defeat of Hitler. But my right hon. Friend will, I am sure, forgive me if I say that to some of us it seemed that he did not deal with the questions raised in the Debate some three weeks ago. In one of his sentences indeed he said that the criticisms made then were matters of detail. Well, they may be matters of detail, but they are very essential matters, attention to which make for total production, and while I do not in the least quarrel with the Prime Minister's statement regarding the tremendous effort which is now being made, I am bound to say that some of us feel that the criticisms made have not yet received an answer.
The Prime Minister also stated in one of the early passages of his speech that almost all factories were under the direct or indirect control of the Government. I do not quarrel with that, but do not let that be put forward as something by


which we are asked to believe that all these factories are working to perfection. I may be wrong, but it seemed to me that the Prime Minister almost suggested that as these factories were working under direct or indirect Government control, everything was perfectly all right and that no criticism could possibly arise.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I think what the Prime Minister was arguing was that as these factories are under the control of the Government, the question of inter-Departmental rivalry does not arise.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: My hon. Friend is, I believe, mistaken. I think he is dealing with another point, to which I will refer later. I do not want to labour the matter unduly, however, but my right hon. Friend said that a great many factories were under the direct or indirect control of the Government, and the impression he gave me was that everything therefore must be right in these factories. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), who does excellent work as chairman of the Select Committee's Sub-committee on Home Affairs, has special opportunities of knowing that all is not perfect in Government factories any more than in other factories. There is no reason to suppose that it would be so. In a later part of his speech the Prime Minister said that in many cases Government Departments work through their own contractors. There is no doubt that that is largely true, especially in connection with the Admiralty, for whom certain contractors have worked for many years. In those cases there is closer liaison between the Department and the factory than would otherwise be the case. But a remark of the Prime Minister's with which I especially want to deal was his reference to an estimate I made in this House that the country as a whole was not working at more than 75 per cent. of our total possibilities of production. That statement was not made three weeks ago for the first time. I made it in this House on 22nd May, and again on 10th June of this year, and at that time it was not challenged at all. With the permission of the Committee I would like to repeat the words I used on 10th June. I said:
…if I had to guess what was the figure of efficiency of our effort to-day, I would not put it higher than 75 per cent. of the full possibilities of the nation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1941; col. 132, Vol. 372.]
I never for a moment suggested that any

one branch of engineering or one. particular factory was not working to full capacity. Of course there are cases of that kind. I know some factories which could not produce another 5 per cent. or even 2 per cent. output, but I would not like the Committee to think for one moment that I vary in the least from the conviction I held and expressed on 10th June. Taking our total effort, we are still short of what we can do, and the great advantage of these Debates will be if, as a result of them, the nation is brought to realise that we must get that extra production. Since I made that speech I have had many hundreds of contacts, both personally and by correspondence, with people of all kinds and also with many Members of this House, and at any rate I am entitled to say this, that among all those with whom I have had contact about this matter there was only one case—and that very guardedly—in which I was not confirmed in my estimate. Many have suggested that I was over-optimistic.

Whereupon, the YEOMAN USHER of the BLACK ROD being come with a Message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair,

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Colonial War Risks Insurance (Guarantees) Act, 1941.
2. Financial Powers (U.S.A. Securities) Act, 1941.
3. War Damage (Extension of Risk Period) Act, 1941.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:—

Diocesan Reorganisation Committees Measure, 1941.

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

(Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.)

Question again proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £90, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum


necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply, including expenses of the Royal Ordnance Factories."

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: I was explaining that the estimate which I made in the House on two occasions previous to the recent Debate, and which was referred to by the Prime Minister to-day, was an estimate of what I considered to be the total possibilities of the nation harnessed to the production of munitions of war. I do not suggest, and I have never suggested, that it was anything more than an estimate. It could not be. It would be quite impossible to give figures on a basis that would satisfy an actuary or an accountant, and I gather that was one of the difficulties—I quite understand it—which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had this morning in dealing with my statement. My right hon. Friend gave some very interesting figures of the increase in the number of people working for victory in the country now as against a year ago. He said that there was one-third more people working in factories and that our production was one-third more, and considering that there had been difficulties of the black-out, air attacks, and so on, the situation was not at all unsatisfactory. To me a comparison of that sort, if I may say so with the very greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, is quite meaningless. This is not a question of comparing one time period with another. There is nothing with which one can compare. It can only be a question of one's own idea based on the evidence one can secure as to what the country could do.
One of the objects I had in view in the speech which I made—and I can assure hon. Members that I gave that estimate only after very careful consideration—has been achieved, because it has brought to the notice of the Government that a very large number of people are not satisfied that we are pulling at the full 100 per cent. rate, which ought to be the case in our war effort. I also stated before business was interrupted that I had had many contacts and that no one has suggested I was pessimistic in making that statement—if anything It was said that I Was over-optimistic. An immense number of new factories which did not previously exist have come into operation during the last year. I do not want

to quarrel with the Prime Minister's figures—I am very glad he is so satisfied— but, personally, I do not think the fact that our output is one-third more than a year ago is entirely satisfactory. I think we could do better than that.
The Prime Minister also spoke of the effect which these remarks of mine and the remarks of other speakers had had, particularly in the United States and in Australia. I very much regret, I deeply regret, that any remarks of mine should have had an adverse effect in Australia or America. The Committee will not think it strange, perhaps, if I say I am surprised that that has been the case; but I really cannot believe that in Australia or in America our cause can be permanently harmed by earnest criticism in this House, and by our showing our determination to apply every remedy and every means in our power and to make every sacrifice necessary to secure the greatest possible effort of which this country is capable. I cannot believe that in the end we suffer by having made our object plain, especially among our brethren in Australia, and I should have thought it could only be harmful, if at all, to a limited extent in the United States. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend was kind enough to say it was not the speech I made but words taken from it and divorced from their context. One appreciates that there are great difficulties for newspapers in these days, and one appreciates that every Member of Parliament has to be particularly careful in what he says in time of war. At the same time I do not think anyone who does me the honour of reading my speech on the last occasion could possibly say I failed to appreciate the difficulties facing the Government or that I attributed blame recklessly either to the Government, to employers, or to employed.
In that speech I referred to three points particularly which show that I was not putting forward merely carping criticism. Firstly, I referred to our un preparedness when the war started and that our difficulties to-day are proof of the earnestness of our efforts to avoid war in 1939. Secondly, I dwelt on the time required for the change-over from peace to war conditions. It is surely quite clear also —and here I am referring to an earlier remark made in the House by the Prime Minister—that my remarks could not be


taken as being criticism of the present Minister of Supply or the present President of the Board of Trade. I believe that both these gentlemen have done excellent work, but that does not in the least detract from the point I am making, namely, the necessity to drive home to the people of this country that there is still more that we can do, and that we are not doing all we can and putting in that little extra which is necessary if we are to win in reasonable time. To me, reasonable and careful criticism of that kind is the duty of the House of Commons. If we are not fighting for free discussion in the House of Commons, for free speech and for a free Press, indeed, I do not know what we are fighting for, and, of all people, I believe my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would be the first to support me in that view. Clearly it must be our object to be careful in what we say, but equally it is our duty to try, not to find fault with the Government, but to spur them on to obtain that extra production which is so necessary and to point out where changes are required. I have not always seen eye to eye with my right hon. Friend in political matters. I differed entirely from his view in one particular question some years ago, but he has had no better friend or stronger supporter in the last months since he took up his present heavy responsibilities. The country owes him a great debt for his determination, drive and initiative which are of inestimable value, but at the same time, however gifted one man may be, one cannot help feeling that the country might benefit if that task could be a little more spread over others and his heavy burden correspondingly reduced.
I do not wish to draw attention to-day to matters to which I referred on the last occasion. It is noticeable, however, in connection with the references I made then that there has been a change, a minor change perhaps, in the working of the Essential Work Order. I am not suggesting it is as a result of the remarks made during that Debate, but at any rate it has been a change which I hope will lead to a more satisfactory working of that legislation. I am very tempted to deal with some of the difficulties of the Minister of Labour and his Ministry, such as the inadequate training facilities in factories, vacancies in the training centres, and the further measures required to harness suc-

cessfully the willing labour of hundreds of thousands who for the first time in their lives are devoting themselves to very arduous work under disagreeable and often repugnant conditions. The Prime Minister seemed to me to want to shield the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour is of a very stalwart structure, and he seems to me to be well able to stand on his own. I do not know of anyone attacking him although I do not think he can possibly expect to be free of criticism in a time like this when all of us are so deeply interested in obtaining the maximum results in the important work he is doing. I am sure the Minister of Labour will not desire the Committee to believe he is entirely satisfied with the present position of affairs. We all know there is a great deal more still to be done in training labour and in placing it.
There is one point, however, upon which I must dwell for a moment. The Prime Minister referred to it again—in fact, it was one of the main points of his speech. It relates to the desire in some parts of the House and among a great number of people outside to see the appointment of a Ministry of Munitions. When I spoke here a few weeks ago I dealt with that point rather guardedly. I referred to the necessity for co-ordination to avoid the difficulties which exist—and everyone knows they exist—between Government Departments and between the Departments and various factories, and I came to the conclusion that there seemed then no other way out of the difficulty except by the appointment of a Ministry of Munitions. I was well aware of the fact that a complete change-over of this kind at this stage of the war was a matter which would have to be very carefully considered. There is no doubt that it would be apt to hold up the machine, perhaps only for a few days but even possibly for weeks. I have therefore been considering since then whether there is not another measure which could be put forward as a constructive proposal to enable the Government to deal with the various difficulties which I and other Members have enumerated to-day and on the previous occasion.
It seems to me that there is an alternative which might be tried. The Minister of Labour has made certain alterations in the Area Boards. I agree with the last speaker that these changes have not gone


far enough to make any radical alteration in the present procedure. These Area Boards, or Regional Boards, as they are now called, are still mainly advisory. In that capacity I do not think we shall get very much further help from them. I suggest that the Government might consider giving real power to these Regional Boards to act in their areas under one Minister in Whitehall—I do not care what you call him—a Minister of Munitions or a present member of the War Cabinet free from Departmental work and in control of the Production Executive. What we want is not advice but action in the regions. They have the knowledge there of production capabilities in their areas, and, if we could get a Board consisting of representatives of the different Minis tries, presided over by a leading local industrialist as chairman and a leading trade unionist as deputy-chairman, or vice versa, with power to act in their area, I believe we might make a very great advance in securing all the district was capable of producing; in the removal of bottle-necks and in the transfer of capacity from one part or unit in the area to another. It would be essential that the chairman, acting for the Board, should have power to refer directly to one Minister in Whitehall. What we want to stop is the present system by which problems are referred back from the area to each Department of the Government independently, from the Ministry of Supply representative to the Ministry of Supply, from the Admiralty representative to the Admiralty, and thus delay decisions and hold up output. If the Government feel that a Ministry of Munitions means too complete an upset at the present stage of the war, I suggest that they should make these Area Boards very much stronger than they are at present and give them power to control production within their areas and to refer directly to one Minister where there is a necessity to settle some question of policy. I am deeply concerned at the inadequacy of the present area organisations and I think a policy of decentralisation on some such lines is the only possible alternative to a Ministry of Munitions. 
I have said that the first object of my former speech had been achieved, and that was to bring to the notice of the Government the fact that many people in

the country are not satisfied with what we are at present doing. I think I might almost claim that my second object in these Debates has also been achieved, and that is to make the people of the country also realise the position. If we can make people appreciate the importance of their own individual effort, the damage done by delays or stoppages, whether the fault of managements or slackness on the part of workmen, if we can make every man and woman realise that it is individual effort that counts, we shall have gone far to achieve what we want.
Time is passing. It is a little sad that, after twenty-three months of war and three years or more since we started to rearm, we are still only directly fighting Hitler, though very effectively, in the air. Let us face the facts. I do not think for a moment that we lose caste anywhere in the world by facing them. It has. taken us a long time, although the task was tremendous and the change-over no mean one, to get into our stride, and it is a little sad, I say, that we are not any further on than we are to-day, great as our achievements are. I do not want ever again to have the Prime Minister say, in a similar kind of case, as he had to say in the case of Crete, that we could not hold it because we had not got the guns. Why have we not got the guns? Some of the reasons why we have not got them yet to the extent necessary are the very matters which the Prime Minister dismissed to-day as details. It is these details that count. I want a determined effort by every executive and every workman to get the largest output possible and to avoid waste of time, labour or material. It must be unpatriotic to waste one's efforts and to allow others to waste valuable days and months. If we have brought that home to the people, as well as bringing the difficulties and problems actively before the attention of the Government, we have done some good.

Mr. Shinwell: The Prime Minister, in opening the Debate, made a characteristic speech. I am bound to say that it was a remarkable dialectical effort, and with much of what was said about the immensity of our task, the final outcome of the war, the background of our production effort and the response of labour, I am in complete accord. Indeed, so are


we all. But if the speech was intended as a considered reply to the recent Debate on production and the many criticisms made on that occasion, it was singularly unsuccessful. We expected a considered reply to the allegations made in the last Debate. Apart from one or two allegations to which the right hon. Gentleman replied, no more was said, and the only response that we received was that our criticism, which emerged from all quarters of the House, would be duly considered. The Prime Minister has again failed to appreciate the fundamental nature of the complaint which has emerged in almost every one of the production and manpower Debates. May I, therefore, direct attention to what I regard as the real and fundamental issue? It can best be appreciated if it is put in a series of questions. Do the facts—I emphasise the facts—of our actual, production justify the acceptance of the view that the position is satisfactory, having regard to the gigantic task confronting the nation? Have we organised the whole of our potential industrial capacity in the war effort? Is there any substance in the complaint made about idle and under-employed labour in factories and about inefficiency of managements? If the munitions position was showing a steady improvement under the control of the late Minister of Supply, why was he supplanted by Lord Beaverbrook? To these question we have received no adequate replies.
Before I deal with those questions I must make reference, following what was said by my hon. Friend opposite, to another issue that emerged from the Prime Minister's speech. If I may say so, my right hon. Friend is very prolific in his challenges to the Committee. He invites us to Divide and again Divide, and presumably to Divide as often as we please; he is ready to meet the challenge. There has, however, never been any specific challenge to the Government. Surely it cannot be supposed that when questions are asked or criticisms emerge in this free and democratic Assembly, the only response vouchsafed by the Prime Minister is to be the acceptance of a challenge. As far as I am personally concerned, I am willing to Divide the House at least twice a week on a fundamental issue if it does emerge, but not on the terms stated by the Prime Minister. With Whips of all parties fettering private Members, it is easy

enough to challenge hon. Members. The challenge is easy when all the cards and, indeed, all the trumps are stacked on your side. I resent these challenges that emerge from my right hon. Friend. There is no occasion for them. Whether he challenges us or not, however, criticism will be continued if there is just occasion for it, but not with any desire to impair the war fabric or embarrass the Government.
In spite of what the Prime Minister said, and, indeed, in spite of this Debate, it is still not clear whether the Government regard the munitions position as satisfactory. We have had percentages and statistics which are meaningless and convey nothing. In the nature of the case nothing can be conveyed by these statistics. Occasionally we have heard statements by Government spokesmen in reply to criticisms which express complete satisfaction with the state of our munitions progress. Frequently we have read speeches by Ministers which were supremely optimistic. The speech of the Minister for Aircraft Production in the last production Debate was a truly remarkable effort in optimism. It was so easy-going, so complacent and so self-assured, probably because, as the Prime Minister remarked when announcing today's Debate, it was not a considered statement. Ministers are expected to make considered statements. If they are unable to do so, it seems likely that they have much to learn about their jobs. On the other hand, we frequently hear accounts of our munitions position which show that the Government are fully alive to the inadequacy of our production effort. Statements do not lose their force because they are made behind closed doors, and even in public Ministers manage to let the cat out of the bag.
A superabundance of evidence goes to prove that we could make a fuller use of our productive effort. Speeches and articles by responsible trade union leaders, many of which I have collected and could quote, statements by workers and by production experts and documents issued by the Select Committee provide a powerful case for criticism which, even allowing for the many difficulties which the Government have encountered, is impressive and cannot be easily dismissed. I propose to take my stand on the ground provided by the Government themselves. Take, for example, the admissions—for


they were admissions, vital admissions— made by the Prime Minister during the Debate on the Cretan episode. Was it not conclusive that the primary difficulty was to provide a sufficiency of arms in all theatres of our Near Eastern operations? This is what the Prime Minister said among other things:
A man must be a perfect fool who thinks that we have large quantities of anti-aircraft guns and aircraft lying about unused at the present time. I will speak about aircraft in a moment, but, so far as anti-aircraft guns are concerned, large and expanding as is our present production, every single gun is in action at some necessary point or other, and all future production for many months ahead is eagerly competed for by rival claimants with, very often, massive cases behind each one of them."—[Official Report, 10th June, 1941; col. 142, Vol. 372.]
That was a quite recent pronouncement, a vital and damaging pronouncement. It should be noted that the statement was made, not in secret but in public, so that when the Prime Minister criticises the critics for making known to the country and the world our deficiencies, he must himself take a share and a large share of the responsibility when he is guilty of making pronouncements of this character. It may be urged that the first consideration in relation to the Cretan episode was strategy. But it is surely clearly established that our strategy is largely, if not wholly, determined by our capacity to produce and deliver munitions.
There is a stronger and more recent criticism. The Prime Minister, in a courageous broadcast six weeks ago, made an immediate response to the wanton act of aggression committed by Hitler on Soviet Russia. Since then we have proceeded further. We have declared Soviet Russia as our Ally. That was a wise decision. Furthermore, we promised to render all possible aid to our new Ally in her struggle against the enemy. Why have we so far failed to render assistance of a substantial kind? The air attacks on the Western Front have been magnificent, but they would presumably have occurred in any event. If the Government maintained that these attacks would not have taken place, that would itself be a ground for serious criticism. We know the Prime Minister well enough to say that he would

wish to create a substantial diversion on the Western Front, to throw our strength into the attack and help to relieve our Russian Allies. Why has he failed? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has the courage, he has the ambition, and the firm conviction of the urgent need for such an onslaught. He would be the first man to join issue with the enemy on this front. Why is he so reluctant? Surely the answer is that he has everything but the means.
It may be urged that we have to conserve our resources because of the possibility of invasion, but the Prime Minister does not rely for final victory on defence alone. He more than any other man is conscious of the need for attack if the enemy is to be brought to book. We did not enter the war simply for the purpose of defending this island. On the other hand, if we expect invasion, as the Prime Minister indicated in his speech to-day, and are conserving our resources for that event, why are we so prolific in our pledges of active support and so ready In promising assistance? If all we have in munitions barely suffices for the defence of these shores, with some provision for our Forces in the Near East which itself is known to be inadequate in the event of large-scale operations, why pretend that the production position is satisfactory and show resentment in the teeth of criticism? Facts are facts, whatever the Government may say, and the suppression of criticism will not enable the Government to take the initiative. That can only be achieved when we have an efficient scheme of production and a flow of munitions on a colossal scale has emerged.
It occurs to me, and I recall what the Prime Minister said during his speech, that the Government are relying too much on the flow of munitions from the United States. If so, it is a grave blunder. I listened with great interest to the statements of our American friends on this side. Their optimism does credit to then-intentions and sincerity, but we cannot expect the industries of the United States to repair the deficiencies of our own factories. That is asking from them more than they are capable of giving. Moreover, should America be embroiled in war with Japan, it is doubtful whether we can expect to receive a flow of munitions


on the present scale. Therefore, to say that there is a vast improvement on the position a year ago, and that we are gradually bringing the nation to full production, is not enough.
It may be that the Government have a target figure in guns and tanks and in all forms of munitions, and that the target figure is being reached every month. That may be so, although it may sometimes happen that the target in a particular category appears to have been reached when, in fact, for want of spare parts or for some other cause, they cannot be put into commission. A tank is not really a tank until it is fully equipped with guns, electrical equipment and all other accessories, any more than a ship becomes a ship when it is launched but has not the engines installed. In any event, it is always possible to reach a target figure without difficulty if the figure is comparatively low. Everything depends on the target set by the Government. If the Government believe that 1,000 guns a month—that is merely an illustration—are sufficient, and that figure is reached, they may feel satisfied, but the number may be far short of what is actually required. It may be necessary that the target figure should be revised and increased.
I should like to refer to a Debate in this House on 7th August last year. On that occasion I, with other hon. Members, made a demand for the complete mobilisation of all our resources for the war effort. That demand received support in many quarters and elicited the reply—in August last, let it be noted—that the Government had a plan and that it was working to their complete satisfaction. Subsequent events seem to indicate that whatever the plan was it proved inadequate for our purposes, or perhaps the Ministers responsible for operating the plan never had a real chance of bringing it to fruition. At any rate, after all the talk of planning and the promise of full mobilisation, at the end of nearly two years of war and fifteen months of the life of the present Government, we have failed to achieve anything like the full use of our resources.
Who is to blame for this state of affairs? In the opening speech of the Debate my right hon. Friend paid a well-deserved tribute to the Minister of Labour. May I remind the Committee that barely

twelve months ago the Minister of Labour received the un stinted and unanimous applause of hon. Members opposite? Now many of the same people who applauded him seek to condemn him, but he is not to blame for the present position. He has never had the authority which would have enabled him to deal with the situation. His task has been to provide the labour, not to organise the supply of munitions. Indeed, it is doubtful whether my right hon. Friend was ever consulted about the location of the new ordnance factories. They were placed in remote areas. Housing was apparently never considered; transport certainly never received any consideration. Moreover, the basic wage paid to female workers in those factories was far too low and failed to attract labour from other industries. That is why registration became essential. I hear that the basic wage for female workers in our new factories is only 38s. a week, and while they may earn more it has led to stress and strain which has caused new difficulties. That, I believe, is not the fault of my right hon. Friend, but the fault of the Treasury, who know nothing about such matters, and apparently never realised that girls earning £3 and sometimes £4 a week in non-essential trades were not disposed to enter munition factories and, when they were compelled to do so, became unwilling workers.
Moreover, when the managements in private concerns proved difficult the Minister of Labour had no power to intervene. There was no authority to displace them or to take over the factories—apart from the famous declaration by the Lord Privy Seal, which is now a standing joke all over the country. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour was step by step compelled to use compulsion on the workers without exercising any compulsion on the employers. That is not only an anomaly but is an impediment to production. No, Sir, the blame does not reside in the Minister of Labour or, for that matter, in any other Departmental Minister. It is elsewhere that we must search for the culprit.
Let me give another example. The late Minister of Supply, now the President of the Board of Trade, is a man with a remarkable business record and, as everyone will agree, a man of the highest integrity. In a statement issued by his


Department following upon a Debate in Secret Session he gave a frank exposition of the work of the Ministry of Supply. He showed how he was gradually building up an ordered production plan. After nine months, what has he actually produced? He has not produced a scheme which commends itself to the War Cabinet or to the Prime Minister, and certainly not that vast range of munitions which everybody had been entitled to expect. All that he has succeeded in producing is Lord Beaverbrook. That is all that has emerged. Why has Lord Beaverbrook emerged? Is it because the position is satisfactory? Is it because the plan has succeeded, that smooth-working plan of which we heard so much in the Prime Minister's speech to-day? Is it because the plan has succeeded and we are now able to build up the tanks and guns which we require for a great effort? Or is it because the plan has failed, and something must be done rapidly to make up the leeway? It was suggested somewhere that the late Minister of Supply had to return to the Board of Trade because there was nobody else to go there. Surely the Prime Minister could have selected somebody from his entourage to fill that post without arousing additional comment.
What is Lord Beaverbrook expected to do at the Ministry of Supply? Apparently he has reconstructed his Tank Board. Presumably he has done so because there was something wrong with the old lot, and if there was something wrong with the old lot, there was something wrong somewhere. Immediately Lord Beaverbrook emerges he removes the old gang and introduces a new crowd. Is Lord Beaverbrook going to act as a bull in a china shop and to barge around the place? We have heard stories of his barging. Is he expected to remain for the purpose of boosting-up production? When the booster is finished, is he to retire on his laurels, or is he to be sent to another Department to boost things there; the universal booster for the Government? He still remains a member of the Production Executive. Who is to co-ordinate the activities of the Production Executive? Will Lord Beaverbrook allow himself to be co-ordinated? I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour would care, in a confidential comment across the

Floor of the Committee but so that everybody can hear, to give the Committee an utterly frank idea of what he expects Lord Beaverbrook to do on the Council over which he presides with so much distinction.

Mr. Bevin: I can tell you what he will have to do.

Mr. Shinwell: Already? Such language to my Lord Beaverbrook? I do not ask for a Minister to run a grandiose munitions department. In that respect I differ from some of my hon. Friends. I ask for a Minister in the War Cabinet untrammelled by departmental considerations, to preside over the Production Executive and coordinate their activities. I agree with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) that it may not be right to introduce a proposal of this kind now, but some modified proposal might be acceptable. I have no desire to abolish the Ministries of Supply, Aircraft Production or Labour, but I want these Departments to work to a common pattern, to eliminate all competition and to abolish all overlapping in production. The Ministry of Supply will never be a successful organisation until there has been a substantial transfer of the functions of other Departments to that Ministry. There is undoubtedly too much overlapping, and I will provide an example. The Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Aircraft Production both manufacture machines, although of different types. The Ministry of Supply and the Admiralty both manufacture explosives and shells, as well as ammunition for certain guns, while the Ministry of Supply manufactures some shells for ex-naval guns now in the coastal defences. The Ministry of Aircraft Production manufactures bomb cases, although the Ministry of Supply does the filling and supplies the fuses. The Ministry of Supply manufactures all small arms and ammunition, Surely this constitutes a prima facie case for more unified organisation?
In the last Debate on production, a demand was made for the pooling of factories. I believe it was a very practical proposal. This served to elicit a superficial response from the Minister of Aircraft Production, who regarded it as an effort to purchase outright the whole of the engineering industry. It is nothing of the sort. There are several impediments to


increased production, but one of them is the fact that several of the managements —I do not put it higher than that—are reluctant to release labour and other resources for the use of their competitors; sometimes they conceal their reserves for fear of losing them to other firms. The plain fact is that they are afraid of diminishing their earning capacity. The remedy is to pool the firms engaged in certain fields of productive activity, thus providing compensation to shareholders and giving each firm an assurance that none will gain at the expense of another. That would remove much of the present difficulty, but that is not nationalisation, although I am bound to say that if the Government find that production is being retarded by private firms, the obvious course is to take them over, at least for the duration of the war.
A few words now on the question of labour supply. I have no doubt that the Minister of Labour has done all in his power to increase training, but I doubt whether the position is yet satisfactory. Perhaps he will tell us what numbers are at his disposal. Several weeks ago we accepted proposals for the concentration of industry. The main purpose was to release labour from non-essential industries for work on munitions. What is the result? It is reported that we have secured, or are about to secure, the services of about 115,000 persons. That is a ridiculously small number. The estimated labour force in non-essential industries that could be made available is from 700,000 to 750,000 persons, so that all we have been able to secure is about 15 per cent. Again, we run up against the difficulty that obstacles are placed in the way by firms who see their livelihood disappearing and by workers who prefer to remain in their old trades earning reasonable wages instead of going on munitions, where the basic wage for a man is 63s. and for a woman 38s. weekly. Not until the principle of compensation is accepted shall we overcome this difficulty, and when it is considered that workers who must leave their homes are compelled to pay high prices for billets, and have sometimes heavy transport costs, it will be seen that some of the troubles are of the making of the Treasury and not of the Ministry of Labour.
This is not in reality a production Debate. We are not called upon to offer constructive proposals, and I shall tell the Committee why. Because, as the Prime Minister observed in the course of his speech, every proposal that has emerged in the course of the past year or 18 months was already well known to the Government and had been considered. I do not want to advance constructive proposals, only to be told six months hence that the Government knew all about them before I had thought of them. If the Government know everything, there is not much room for the critics in this House. Indeed, I wonder if there is much room for Parliament itself. I affirm that the case for the critics has been made out. They are completely vindicated by events and need offer no apologies for the strictures in the recent Debate.
It is the function of this House to offer criticism, and I hope they will never abandon it. I maintain that since last August we have consistently offered suggestions to the Government in a helpful and constructive spirit. If, on occasion, there is some acid about, let it not be forgotten that Ministers, not excluding the Prime Minister, have indulged in its use themselves. The faults are not always on one side. But whether in the Government, or on the other benches in this House, our objective is the same. It is, to construct out of our vast resources the arms required to give the death blow to the menace of Hitlerism. On that issue there is common agreement, whatever else may divide us. We have the skill of our craftsmen, the willingness of millions of our workers of less skill but none the less useful, our technical ability and capacity of organisation and, by no means least, the support of powerful Allies. That, properly used, is a powerful and formidable combination. Let us make certain it is effectively organised and harnessed to the national effort.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: I do not propose to intervene for more than a few minutes, as I know that a number of Members who wish to speak may not be given an opportunity to do so. My intervention is for two reasons, first, because I happen to be intimately associated with a number of industrial concerns throughout the country which are engaged in Government work, and, secondly, because, no less than the Prime Minister


himself, I felt that the recent Debate on supply was calculated to give a wholly false impression of the magnitude of our national effort.
In the present Debate, in summing up his condemnation of the results which have been achieved by our production Departments, the hon. Member for Kidderminister (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) said, in effect, "Here we are at the end of 23 months, and we are only hitting Hitler in the air." Has he never heard of the work of the Royal Navy? Does he blame the Ministry of Supply or the industries of this country for the immense amount of equipment left behind at Dunkirk, or in Norway, Greece, or Crete? When we have regard to the fact that this country started its war production effort some five or six years after Germany, when we have regard to the enormous change-over that has had to take place in our factories and workshops from a peace-time to a war production, apart altogether from the hundreds of new plants that have had to be laid down, I submit to the Committee the result which has been achieved up to date, when taken as a whole, has been truly remarkable.
But nobody in his senses, least of all the Prime Minister, pretends that we have yet had time to reach the maximum effort of which this nation is capable. There is ample evidence that most of the shortcomings mentioned in this or the previous Debate are known to the Government, and are receiving attention. They are being brought to the notice of the Government by trade associations and industrialists all the time whenever they arise. I believe the gap between the percentage of output which the hon. Member for Kidderminster mentioned and the maximum output of which we are capable, is closing more quickly than the hon. Member would lead us to believe.
In the recent Debate on production the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), like other hon. Members, made considerable play with the fact that industry was being held up owing to numerous alterations in designs. I know from bitter experience what it is to have a pile of blue-prints arriving morning after morning containing such alterations just when you are hoping to receive instructions to go ahead with production.

There have been times when some of us have been extremely irritated by that; times when, if I had not been a Member of Parliament, I should perhaps have been sorely tempted to seek out a Member of Parliament and elicit his assistance. But we learned our lesson and modified our views at the time of the Battle of Britain. We then realised—some, perhaps for the first time—that if it had not been for the alterations which had been made in the designs of the Spitfire and of the Hurricane which gave them superiority in performance, no amount of skill on the part of the industrialists and workers and of the pilots could possibly have saved this country.
Whether we are producing aeroplanes, tanks, guns or any other form of munitions, we should adopt as a winning motto: "Get your prototype right before you go into production." This involves, among other things, having actual machines built and undergoing a whole series of trials, the manufacturer receiving, day after day, modifications in design as the result of those trials, before he can start production. But production need not necessarily be held up seriously on that account, provided that the moment the machine has reached a certain standard of performance, the manufacturer is allowed to go ahead and produce, say, 50 or 100 of that type. Later modifications may be conveniently incorporated in the next series. In that way the country will get the best of both worlds. The R.A.F. and the Army will get the machines on which to start their training, and, in due course, when the real fighting units come off the production line, they will incorporate all the latest improvements. Fortunately, at least so far as my experience goes, the Supply Departments are acting more and more on this principle, which I am certain is the right one.
There are many such practical points on which I would wish to touch if there were time, but I have reason to believe that in most cases the Government are well aware of them and are giving them their attention. I would, however, like to emphasise one very important point, and that is that if we are to maintain an even and uninterrupted flow of aeroplanes, tanks, guns and munitions, there must be continuity of orders so that fac-


tories should have sufficient time to retain or engage the necessary labour, to plan and programme the production through their shops, to order and obtain the materials required so that they can be put through their machine shops and got ready as component parts for assembly, and to enable them to obtain the necessary jigs, tools, templates, etc., so that the time taken in changing from one production job to another is reduced to the absolute minimum. In years gone by we have suffered through orders being held back and only brought to us at a time when we had no alternative but to stand men off. I am glad to say, however, that: in recent times, and particularly during the tenure of the present Government, things have greatly improved in that respect. I have mentioned the matter again to-day in order to bring it further to the attention of the various Departments concerned, so that any delay of this kind which may still operate to prevent the even flow of production may be eliminated altogether in the future.
I am very glad indeed that the Government, and Parliament, as has been shown by the various speeches made to-day, realise that whereas overtime is necessary in the present national emergency, it has been proved to be a physical impossibility to work men for seven days a week and to maintain increased output. I know of a number of cases where the seven-day week has been attempted, and the output, with the best will in the world, has actually fallen below that of the normal week's output.
It has been repeatedly said that more than 90 per cent. of the managements and men who are engaged in industry at this moment are putting their backs into their jobs in the great drive for victory on the workshop front. To that view I heartily subscribe. But I would like also to pay a very well-deserved tribute to the immensely valuable contribution being made to industry by women. It is within my knowledge that many hundreds of women, who are temporarily engaged in industry to-day, and who do not expect to be continued in industry after the war, are proving themselves punctual, methodical, industrious and efficient. In a matter of days, or at most weeks, they have mastered the most complicated machines and are working accurately to the finest limits. In acknowledging, as

we gladly do, the work which our fellow men are doing at this time, I hope we shall not be slow to acknowledge our increasing indebtedness to the women for the part they are playing in the national effort.

Commander Bower: I think the resumption of this Debate today will be proved to be extremely valuable because I cannot help feeling that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a wrong impression of the amount of interest which was being taken in the question of production, not only in this House but throughout the country. Parliament, Press and people have been taking a very lively interest in the matter, and I feel that during the last Debate the Committee was not altogether treated with that regard and courtesy which it deserves. After all, at the present time, when so many of our liberties have been surrendered, it is all the more important that the Executive should value the critical and informative function which Parliament is expected to exercise. I cannot help feeling that my right hon. Friend, had he consulted his Sancho Panza, his Parliamentary Private Secretary, might have had a conversation something like this:
 'How sayest thou so?' quoth Don Quixote; 'Dost thou not hear the horses neigh the trumpets sound, and the beat of drum?' 'I hear nothing else' said Sancho, 'than a great bleating of many sheep.' 
When my right hon. Friend said it would be open to us to take up the quarrel, I think he was making a great mistake. As the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shin well) said, there is no quarrel here; we are all on the same line; we want to get our production up to its very maximum. Again to-day, my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) said that he considered that our production was below what it might be. I think every hon. Member who represents an industrial constituency must come to that conclusion. Without going into figures or percentages, there is no doubt that we could do more, and I cannot see that it can do us any harm to let that fact be known in Australia, the United States, or anywhere else. It must be admitted that in the United States there are doubtless certain people and newspapers who are always prepared to take any damaging statements out of their con-


text and use them against us. No Member of Parliament is unfamiliar with that type of procedure, but I do not think much harm is done by it, and I think that any harm that is done will be much more than counterbalanced by the guidance and instruction which the Government will receive from hon. Members when such criticisms are made.
I do not want to refer at any length to deficiencies in our production, but there is one point I would like to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. Owing to the Essential Work and other Orders, it is true to say that, broadly speaking, no employer is master in his own business to-day. That may or may not be a good thing, and I do not propose to argue it now; what I say is that somebody must be master and there must be some form of discipline and control. After studying matters in my own constituency, my view is that the control of the management has been in a large measure vitiated, and nothing has been put in its place. That is unhealthy, and I am quite convinced that in many instances that in itself causes a loss of production.
There is another small point to which I want to refer. My attention has been drawn to one or two instances where civil servants performing extremely useful jobs, in which they have got to know all the details very thoroughly, and in which those working with them have got to know and like them, have suddenly been promoted and removed to another sphere of action for which they have been much less suited. I suggest that in such cases, without depriving the civil servants of the extra emoluments which arise from their promotion, they might easily be retained in the same jobs where they would probably be much more useful in the war effort than they would be in new and unaccustomed jobs.
Lastly, I wish to refer to the question of anti-aircraft guns, which the hon. Member for Seaham touched upon a few moments ago. I had personal experience of this. There is no secret in the matter. Last autumn the Navy were extremely short of anti-aircraft guns and I understood that was because they were wanted for the Army. But a few months later the Prime Minister stated openly in this

House that the Army were short of antiaircraft guns, and this was after nearly two years of war. I think that state of affairs was very regrettable indeed. I only mention it because Crete was a very great shock to us, particularly when some of the facts became known and we found out how very acute the shortage was in spite of all the time for preparation. I cannot believe the Government are satisfied with a state of affairs like that. I believe that if they are criticised for such deficiencies and resent this criticism, it is the duty of Parliament to say they resent such resentments. There is no hostility to this Government at all. All Parliament wants to do is to exercise its proper functions of guidance. I wish to associate myself with all those hon. Members, and there are many of them, who have said they intend to go on criticising in a friendly way, so long as they find something which should be criticised.

Mr. Lawson: The Committee may remember that when the Prime Minister made his statement to the effect that the last Debate had caused some disturbance abroad, I interjected that it had caused some disturbance in this country. That was so, not because of the criticism—one expects criticism in this House, and I have not been, as the Committee knows, inactive myself on the question of production—but because it was thought in the country that no really adequate answer had been given to the points raised. I thought that some of the points would not have been very difficult to answer. The feeling in the country— and I had seen something of it in the Press as well—was illustrated by a conversation which I accidentally overheard and which indicated the reaction among the people following what was said during the previous Debate. Part of the conversation, which I heard in a bus, was on these lines: "Well, we have pulled our guts out for the last year; we have done all we can, and if this is the way they are going to talk about us, then to Halifax with the lot of them "—I am sorry to say the word used was not "Halifax." That was the attitude of the workers.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) drew attention to the fact that he had been balanced in his criticism. He was. He stated, for instance, that the Government had worked wonders in the last year, and I


am going to show that they have done so, in spite of some criticisms I have heard. That fact did not emerge, however. What did emerge in the Press, and it was not only hinted at, was the question of absenteeism, and questions affecting the workers generally. I am not going to excuse any worker who does not do his duty. I am not such a fool as to say there are not workers who do not do their duty. I have not been in industry for the better part of my life without knowing that. But I say, that the critics of the workers seldom pay any attention to a considerable section of society which never does any work at all, which has sufficient wealth to get as much food as it likes, which can roll in its motor cars to certain places and pay for what it gets, and very often get what is denied to other people. We do not hear much about that class. Neither do we hear that in the past year the mass of the workers have, in the main, almost exhausted themselves in order to contribute towards the nation's need. They have done more. Night after night, week-end after weekend, they go out on night duty, helping in civil defence, taking part in route marches, practices and manoeuvres with the Home Guard. I think we might sometimes spend a little time in telling the world what our workers have done in the last year, instead of limiting ourselves to criticism of their activities. One would have thought from some of the speeches to-day that the Government had been in office for the last four or five years, or at least since the war had broken out. It looks to me as though some critics are trying to cover the defects of previous Governments by casting the sins of those Governments upon the present Government.
What was the position twelve months ago? We had lost the bulk of our equipment in France and the Low Countries. We had a call for old shot guns for the Home Guard—and were we not pleased when we got a varied assortment of arms from America? We welcomed that gift as though it was a veritable factory armaments works in itself. We were grateful for what we got. We are very grateful to America for all she has done and for all that is coming. We appreciate the magnificent fight that Russia is putting up now and the benefit that it is giving us. But we still realise that we have to depend

upon ourselves. If we have improved our position—and we have, as the Prime Minister said—we have to remember, too, that the enemy has improved his position. He has the whole of Europe at his disposal, and we have not learned much if we do not know that the enemy is just as ruthlessly efficient in things economic as he is in the miltary and air spheres. Speed is the keynote of things as far as we are concerned, and the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, cannot sufficiently emphasise to the people of this country that one day that enemy will turn upon us. He will come back in desperation, and we shall need to be armed much better than we are at the present time if that does take place.
I have said previously in the House that I do not think there is sufficient authority in those who represent the Government in matters of production. I do not think the Government have been given sufficient credit for the setting-up of the Production Executive, the Advisory Committees and the Regional Committees. That was a wise move. There was more wisdom behind it than the Committee generally appreciates. The Advisory Committee has the effect of harnessing the experience of industry generally on the part of employers and workers to the Production Executive. That was badly needed. The Regional Committee does the same thing: I want the Minister of Labour to realise that there is something like unanimity in all parts of the House on the fact that whoever acts as chairman of the Production Executive must have time to do the work and authority to act. Both here at the centre and in the regions I have a sense of a lack of authority. Statements and complaints were made in the last two days' Debate, but, as the Prime Minister showed to-day, some of them were a little out of date. The right hon. Gentleman has only begun to operate as chairman of the Production Executive. Some of the troubles and scandals that were related in the Committee happened some time ago. When complaints can be put to the Advisory Committee by the employers' side of industry, the committee get to know what is wrong, and they get plenty of quick information. They come up, too, from the workers' side. It is expected that these meetings, representative of the workers and the employers, will keep the Production Executive informed


of what is happening in the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has not the time to deal with these things. It is no good saying there is a staff to deal with them, because they are matters which need the personal attention of the Minister.
Then take the regional position; the same thing applies there. It was in the regions that I saw the scheme at work. I have proposed that there should be somebody in a region directly responsible and free to act with authority in place of relying upon a committee. What happens in the region is that an employer sits in the chair and the difficulties are talked over. That employer is usually a man who is the executive of a company, if not the manager. When he leaves that meeting he goes back to his own work and the whole organisation is left in the hands of civil servants. They may be good or they may be bad, but the fact remains there is nobody with authority in charge in the region. They get plenty of circulars. That is the trouble. Instead of someone with authority being appointed to act, so many circulars are sent from Department after Department that if all are to be read there will be no work done. I do not mind saying that if I read all the circulars I get on Civil Defence matters, I should get no work done, and I may tell those who write them that I do not read half of them. We shall only cut down the issue of circulars by putting in charge someone who is really responsible.
I do not think the Prime Minister has heard the last of this question of a Ministry of Production, in spite of the explanation he has given to-day. It is the old question of the Ministry of Munitions over again, and I think he will have to answer the case in a much more effective fashion than he has done to-day, and also meet the point that we are now in a situation where we have not the incentive of private profit-making on the one hand, or the wholesale nationalisation of factories on the other. I think that is a point which will call for an effective answer before very long.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) has come back to the Committee, because I want to speak frankly

upon another side of the matter which has not been raised at all to-day. It is not without significance that from the first day of the formation of this Government the storm of criticism broke upon the Minister of Labour. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour can answer for himself in any rough-and-tumble, but the matter has gone further than that since that day. I understand that something like a shadow Cabinet is in being and, from what I can see, particularly in the Press, it is not without meaning that the Ministers who have been ousted are practically all Labour Ministers. There has been a kind of straw ballot taken, which often coincides with what are called the rumours in the Lobby. Sometimes we have heard the statement that Ministers ought to be chosen irrespective of party. That statement made in this House has usually been cheered, but I notice that there is very great caution this afternoon. I always ask myself the question: Irrespective of which party? I notice, for instance, that the last Ministers were chosen in certain parts of this House, and all of us had our opinions about them, but when it came to the meager—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not quite sure under which Vote the present comments of the hon. Gentleman come.

Mr. Lawson: I was speaking about criticism which had been levelled at the Government and was pointing out that it had generally been side-tracked on to labour. As a matter of fact, there is a definite attempt on the part of certain hon. Members to try, by much pushing-off of criticism, to lay the whole of the blame upon Labour for the position in production. It is an old party game. All I can say is that the Prime Minister showed an understanding 12 months ago of the stage of development at which this country had arrived when he asked Labour, both political and industrial, to join the Government. It appears to me that it is not yet quite understood that Labour is not now in mean street, either politically or industrially. Something like a miracle has happened in this country. In this industrial age there is more combustible material lying about than ever before in our history, explosive material, which has destroyed many nations. The miracle is that this country is more united now than ever before in its history. If


there is anywhere an impression abroad that Labour can be kicked out and yet kept in, all I can say is that that is heading for disaster. I do not want to pursue that, except to say that I have watched with very great pleasure the united endeavour of the people of this country to increase output and to strengthen our defensive organisation. That unity and that temper represent the people of the country. I do not believe that any section of society will for a moment tolerate anyone who tries to separate the various elements of this Government.
In conclusion, as some of the older Members here know, there was a time not very long ago, before artillery was mechanised, when each gun was drawn by six horses. The Committee will perhaps excuse me for saying that I was one of the unfortunate people who had to ride the horses. I never made much of a soldier, but I had much tribulation in learning to ride my horses, and I think I was about as vain about that as were some of the gentlemen who wore red tabs. One thing I learnt was that one had to forget oneself and think of the team; if not, one was soon in a tangle, there was soon trouble and maybe disaster. The horses had to move together. It was a great art: to get everything working together. I thought that was a lesson which we had learnt effectively for the period of the war, but I am beginning to have my doubts. At any rate, we did learn then, for our own sakes, to forget ourselves and remember the team. The moral of that is obvious, and if nothing else I have said is remembered, I recommend that to this House both in this and in future Debates.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I do not think there are many points in to-day's Debate which I am called upon to answer in detail. There are, however, one or two points from previous Debates which I should like to deal with, as the Vote of the Ministry of Labour was not clown on those occasions and I think it is better that I should clear them up now. There was a statement made by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) regarding piecework earnings which, if allowed to go unanswered, may cause some uneasiness among the vast number of people in the country who are on payments by results. Payments by results, if they are to be

successful in their application, must rest on absolute confidence. There is no other way in which they can operate. It was said on that occasion that I had caused some uneasiness by the statement which I had made publicly that I did not mind what was earned on payment by results so long as it was represented by production. We were asked whether or not that represented Government policy. My answer to the hon. Member is "Yes, emphatically." When a rate is fixed through the procedure existing in industry, and the people increase their output, it is not our concern, from that point, what they earn. We assume that the industry will fix the rate justly if the proper machinery is used. But the more the people increase their earnings, the lower they make the costs of production. The greatest antidote to inflation takes place, and there is a greater production for the war effort. Therefore, it is Government policy.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I cannot recollect that I mentioned anything about piece rates. I did not mean to refer to piece rates at all. I was talking about total wages earned, and the point I was trying to make was whether there was to be any limit to the total wages earned in a diminishing consumption market.

Mr. Bevin: The hon. Member was referring to the speech I made which dealt with piece work in the building industry. I made a speech in Manchester, and the hon. Member quoted from it. I dealt in it with the transference of a body of men, after 100 years on time rates, to payment by results. In the interests of the war effort I have persuaded them to go over to the system of payment by result—no mean task, even for an unskilled labourer. Therefore, I have said to the men that when the piece-rate is fixed in the building trade, I do not mind how many bricks they lay, or what they earn; what I want is production. That is Government policy, and to that the whole Cabinet adheres.

Mr. Stewart: That was not the report printed in the "Times."

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is there a guaranteed minimum?

Sir Joseph Nall: I was present at the meeting to which the Minister has referred, and I think I am entitled to say that no one at that meeting could possibly have misconstrued what he said. It was perfectly clear to everyone who listened that he wished that those who did put their backs into the job should get the proceeds to which they were entitled.

Mr. Bevin: There is another point which was made in the last Debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) with regard to the difficulty of fixing rates. This is a vexed problem. Anyone who has had any experience of rate-fixing knows how difficult it is to forecast exactly what production will be, but I think that, if the procedure laid down by the Employers' Federations and the trade unions of the country is followed, and people do not go in madcap fashion fixing rates, and then complaining afterwards, it will be kept on a fairly good level. It may be that, as a result of the expedition of workers, the outcome is greater production and, again, what looks like abnormal earnings. But I am always a little puzzled about these abnormal earnings. I really think it is time that this class distinction came to an end. If somebody gets £1,000, £2,000 or £3,000, it is purely a conception, it is purely a tradition, but if a workman gets over £5, somebody thinks the world is coming to an end. For Heaven's sake, let us get into our minds that the thing that matters is cost.
May I refer, while on this wages problem, to the White Paper, and deal with the point put by the right hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris)? He asked, could not a stop be put on wages, because of the danger of inflation? That was what was tried in the last war, and it caused inflation. In 1917 the then Government decided that they would get the chairman of the arbitration tribunal to announce that it was Government policy that further increases should not be granted. What happened? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will well remember, because it nearly ended his political career. The moment the safety valve of unfettered arbitration was taken away, disastrous disputes followed throughout the country. I beg hon.

Members not to single out one class in the community and say that for them arbitration should be fettered.
It has been assumed always that wages increase prices. Actually, wages always follow prices up and follow prices down. I make a present of that fact both ways. When prices go up, wages go up; and when prices come down and wages have to follow them down, great difficulty in adjustment may result. We discovered that at the end of the last war. That is the difficulty. Therefore, on this occasion we have made stabilisation the fundamental policy. The White Paper says that if prices remain as they are now, so-and-so should be taken into account, but that if prices jump right up, you cannot close the door to adjustment of wages. We hope, by the methods we have adopted and by the policy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget, to create a situation in which adjustments will not be necessary. I think that is the best policy to follow.
May I say on behalf of—perhaps I should not say on behalf of anybody, but I cannot yet remember that I am here, after so many years in another place. [Interruption.] I think Transport House is another place. I would like to say this, however, on behalf of industry. Before I came here there were many discussions on this problem. I believe that both sides in industry are seized of the importance of trying to avoid such difficult times as they experienced from 1918 to 1926. Adjustments upward may be popular—I speak from sorry experience. Adjustments downward are not an easy matter. We do not want to create a situation at the end of this war in which wage policy will throw out of gear internal production, the quick revival of our export trades, coal and everything else. In that sense we are trying with the help of employers, of the trades unions, of the Treasury and everybody else to keep the balance. That you will avoid inflation altogether is very doubtful and you must have a strong machine at the end of this war to control speculation and every factor which could disturb the quick return to stability and trade. I think, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green will agree that this matter has been carefully studied in


all its aspects in order that we may be able to grapple with this problem.
During the last Debate it was said that I, as Minister of Labour, was unskilled. I would like to take the opportunity now of saying that I do not think any greater honour has ever been done to me than the making of that remark by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson). I am the proudest man in the country to think that for nearly 40 years my life has been spent with unskilled labourers. After all, the old navvy is not unskilled. He has done much for civilisation by the roads he has cut, by the railways he has laid and by the great works he has constructed throughout the British Empire. It has been a pleasure to serve him and to be one of his kind, and I do not want to be anything else. It was a great honour the hon. Member did me, and one which I appreciate, more especially when I think of the dockers of to-day. A few decades ago they were among the outcasts and the rejected, but to-day they are in the forefront of the organised artisans of the world. Therefore, I want to thank the hon. Member for Mossley most sincerely for calling public attention to the fact that I am an unskilled labourer. But it is a little hard when a man tries to be a cynic and only reveals that he is a cad.
I would like to deal now with the question of the Ministry of Production. I cannot, of course, add anything to the statement of policy outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to-day, but I should like to make a few observations from my own personal experiences. I doubt very much—and I will place it no higher than that—whether there is any half-way house between the present form of organisation and a complete Ministry of Munitions. It is no use constantly trying to find a compromise. The task always is—and I say it as coming new to Government, although, I hope, unbiased—to keep responsibility down. I have done a little organisation in my time, and I would utter this word of warning. It is so easy to pass the responsibility up. If you create organism upon organism, there is a tendency for the responsibility to be passed upwards into a bottleneck instead of being held down to the circumference. We have been working with the Regional Boards, and we have been trying to carry out principles of devolution, I admit not

with complete success. There are many industrialists in the Committee who have carried through great mergers, and I suggest that there is not one of them who, in his experience of mergers, has been able to level out everything in less than four or five years. Whenever I took a society into my large union, I always allowed three or four years before I could get the whole thing smoothed out and working properly. When you get to government, and it is a question of creating a complete organism, merging and reshaping so many things, it is not easy to keep the sense of responsibility down to the circumference. I urge that the matter be considered in that light.
As I have said, we have been carrying out devolution, which is bound up with three things. The first is the right distribution of materials, the second is the full use of industrial capacity, and the third is to bring within the orbit of the main manufacturer every possible manufacturing unit in the vicinity. That is the guiding line. When contracts are running and things are proceeding in the way in which they have to do, it is not easy to make a break. You cannot afford to make a break, and you have to change as the changing orders go on. One of the fundamental things that we did in relation to production was this. After Dunkirk, we found ourselves in a very grave position of short supplies of certain vital and essential materials. I do not think it is any good crying about the past or blaming anybody. For instance, if anybody asks me who was responsible for the British policy leading up to the war, I will, as a Labour man myself, make a confession and say, "All of us." We refused absolutely to face the facts. When the issue came of arming or rearming millions of people in this country, people who have an inherent love for peace, we refused to face the real issue at a critical moment. But what is the good of blaming anybody? We cannot make our action retrospective whatever we do. We have to start from now and try to do the best we can. We found ourselves, then, in the terrible position of being short of supplies of alloy steel—the key, the linchpin. We found ourselves in a position in which priorities were not working back to the other side, to the point of shipment. Orders and priorities abroad were not quite working together.
Why was that? I do not blame anybody. There were so many fields of supply open to us until Norway went and, suddenly, France went. When the Continent and the near points of supply were closed to us, we found ourselves suddenly up against a position which nobody had anticipated or even provided for in the strategy of war. I am putting the thing quite frankly. That was the problem. We had before us the whole list of supplies. We curbed in one direction where we could manage for so many weeks, we built up in another direction. I cannot give figures to the Committee, but there is not a manufacturer or a member of a Regional Board who will deny that the problem of raw materials, and the free flow of materials, even with the Battle of the Atlantic going on, has been largely solved. I do not believe that a single works in this country is held up. unless there is a hitch in transport. I think that is a great accomplishment, with the Battle of the Atlantic and everything else we have had to contend with over the last few months.
There was then the question of balancing materials and food, a very critical thing to do. It was not an easy decision to balance raw materials in the country, and build up supplies in the Middle East, and choose between 1s. 4d. or 1s. worth of meat for the people of this country. I have been frank with the workers in the country, and I have told them why their ration has gone down. When they find the Cabinet took the decision to supply the troops in the Middle East with equipment at the expense of their rations, they cheer and say we have done the right thing. There is no reason why they should not be told. This balancing was going on every day and every week, first on the labour side and then on the production side—could we run this, or could we run that, and so on. The Prime Minister said dark as the cloud has been, difficult as is the issue we have yet to face, yet with these resources, with the resourcefulness of our Forces and the contributions made to us in many ways we can see a little of the silver lining. At any rate our people will be better off this winter than they were last winter. I have had very great difficulty in handling the mines problem for this very reason. There is no use in disguising the fact. As was so well put this morning

at another meeting, it would probably be better if the men could have 2s. 6d. worth of meat to conserve their energy than take another 10,000 men back into the mines. We were conscious of what had to be faced in dealing with the problem.
It has been asked, why are we not helping Russia more? I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) that it is very clever to say that my right hon. Friend's speech was dialectical, but I doubt the wisdom of such a statement as he made. Surely it is known what problems are facing the Army in regard to the question of taking the initiative? To imply that it is because we have failed in production that we are not taking the initiative on the Continent of Europe at this moment—and that is the inference —is a little unfair to the productive side It is also unwise, when Russia is fighting for her very life, to let her think for a moment that the British Cabinet is holding back in any effort it could make. I think that that is a mistake. It does not matter what you say to us here, because we know each other. If I may say so, with all kindness, we know what value to place upon what is said. My hon. Friend will agree that I am not taking a different line from that which I took in Labour conferences for years. I used to say, "Do not carry silly resolutions, because either other people will bank their policy upon them, or they may result in unnecessarily destroying confidence." Remember a person in another country never places the same interpretation upon what you say, and that what you say may convey an entirely wrong impression. After long experience of international work—and I have tried to do my best in the international sphere—I say that there is one language for consumption abroad and another for consumption at home, and we should use language sparingly, when it is to be consumed abroad, because of the difficulties which may arise.
I should like to take this opportunity to review briefly the kind of steps one has had to take in dealing with the problems of my Department. First, I was given the task by the Prime Minister of mobilising the labour of this country. That task divided itself into three parts. First there were the Services. The Cabinet and the Defence Committee laid down in their wisdom how many men and women had to be found for the three


Services. We have a population of 44,000,000. You have to delete your working population out of that, strained to its utmost limit, of about 17,000,000, and out of your 17,000,000 you must allow, over a certain period, for a certain number of people of certain ages, and they must be of a certain physical standard. So you have to estimate health standards, the rejects and the rest of it, before you can get down at all to your working population.
But there is another difficulty to overcome in connection with the Services. The number of Service tradesmen who have to be provided is about 10 times as great as in any previous war. There has been a good deal of criticism about the number of skilled men who have gone into the Services. I invite any industrialist to go through the servicing depots of the Air Force establishments and tell me whether they have ever found it possible to run industry on as low a percentage of journeymen as that with which the Air Force has managed to build up that great organisation since the war broke out. It is an amazing achievement. The overwhelming proportion of the people repairing our aircraft are semi-skilled and trained since the war broke out in terms of months, and, not only that, but they are being continuously transferred to the seats of war, with new men coming along for training. I take my hat off to the Air Force. They have done an amazing work. I have no doubt that, as the mechanical expansion of the Army takes place, we shall find, when the Committee has inquired into it, a very similar result. When I am asked, "Why are you letting these people in?" two things have to be done with this labour force. You not only have to have the men to fight, but you have to have the men to keep them on the road and keep them intact, which means so much when the fighting takes place. Then there are the women on these vital Services. I cannot give the figures, but it runs into thousands. They also have to come out of the reserves of women-power for industry.
If there is one thing that this nation has had a tremendous dividend upon, which has revealed itself in the training for industry and the training that has taken place in the Services, it is the great educational system of the country for the last 30 or 40 years. Although far too many of

these people, far more than ever ought to be allowed again, passed into non-productive occupation, and have had to be taken back out of non-productive occupation into this productive effort, the ability, the agility and the marvellous way in which they have adapted themselves in learning their work is a tribute to the basic educational value of the teaching that they have received in our elementary and secondary schools. Without it, this great labour force could never have been built up. The second thing one had to do was to look at the immediate short-term policy, which was to transfer people from place to place as speedily as one could. That led to a great deal of improvisation, and I have no doubt it was the basis of a good deal of the criticism. We could not stop to put a long-term policy into operation while we had the Dunkirk position and the Battle of Britain facing us. Therefore, there was a good deal of. irritation and difficulty that had to be overcome in the short-term policy. During the time that that was proceeding we were working out a long-term policy.
One of the tremendous difficulties that was facing us was the labour turnover. From all parts of the House in the earlier Debates there was criticism that I was not stopping men from moving from one place to another. To meet that there had to be some sort of Order, and I produced for the Cabinet the Essential Work Order. I think I can claim that no one has found an alternative to it, although I have tried in discussions with industry to see whether anything else could be devised. Its main purpose was to tie people to their jobs and put transfer on an orderly basis. Another object of it was to say to the citizen, "You are not tied, as it were, to another citizen; you are tied to a responsibility to the State." The Committee must make up its mind on it. The criticism of this Order has largely been on the ground that I have not restored the system of the old leaving certificate in the hands of the employer. I have had to have regard to the last war. After all, I went through all the disputes at that time. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will remember that the leaving certificate produced the most bitter trouble on the Clyde and the right hon. Gentleman had to go down and address the men and virtually


make it inoperative. It is no good making orders we cannot enforce.
With that experience, I tried, in the good old British way, to ride a middle course, and to say, "If I tie the man to the job, I give him security, but, on the other hand, I expect him to observe certain obligations." I do not. think that that is an unreasonable position. I want to assure the Committee that the Order is working extremely well. Applications are coming forward from industry after industry to be brought under the Order so that they can get stability. It has not merely secured the retention of people in industries but it has given the Ministry of Labour and the Production Executive a chance to know how many people are retained, and it makes the discovery of superfluity of labour much easier. It is said that the Order takes away discipline. The best industries in this country do not rely upon sacking to impose discipline. We do not often sack politicians to get discipline. Possibly I shall in time discover the reason, but I do not know it at the moment. Highly developed industries in this country have introduced appeal boards and the like. I introduced the system into London transport before the last war, in the days when the passenger was always right—although it was discovered he was often wrong—and it has worked admirably. We reduced dismissals in the transport industry to below 2 per cent.
All that is needed is that industry shall work the system. Trade unionists should not confine themselves to making critical speeches at their conferences, many of which I have tested and found not to be well-founded. For years they have cried, "Give us more power of control, give us more power and responsibility." I would reply, "Do not shy at it now that it is in your hands." But the exercise of power and responsibility means taking unpleasant decisions as well as pleasant ones. If you are going to share power and responsibility for discipline in industry, it means not only telling a fellow that he is a good chap; sometimes it means sacking him. That both sides should shy-off working this Order shows a little touch of the inferiority complex, and I would beg both the unions and the employers to face up to the position. Here

is a foundation on which to work, even though it has been introduced as an Order in war-time. I wish I had had the advantage of it at the end of the last war to assist in securing stability instead of the chaos which existed when peace came about. I seriously urge that this Order should not be treated as though it were something of no value. I believe that it is of great industrial value and can be a complement to the new developments in industrial relationships which have come into being in the last few years.
May I now say a word at the risk of being told that sometimes I lecture employers? They lectured me for years, lectured me so often that I knew what they were going to say before I asked for the increase. But, joking apart, I want more attention paid to management up to works management level, or we shall fall behind. We have had criticism about handling this sudden development of Governmental activity—the hon. Member for Kidderminster was quite right—there is a great difficulty in building up supervision, getting managers, foremen, costings clerks and so on. In that respect the handicap has been terrific. Such people cannot be created in a moment. Opportunities have been provided at the technical schools, and I ask employers to release their men to take advantage of these new opportunities. To do so will pay the ma thousand fold. I should like to see management become a profession. I would like to see the old barriers broken down, so that when a good trade unionist who has the confidence of his fellows in industry is to be promoted, he will not be told that he has to leave his society. That places men in a terrible difficulty.
I would make a suggestion which would help us for the rest of the war. I would ask employers not to raise a barrier. Tell such a man, if you like, that he must not take part in his trade union activities, but do not place him in the position of choosing whether he will be disloyal to his pals or render service to you. Remember that the man who has come upwards from being a shop steward to taking responsibility has an urge within him for a place in the sun and for taking responsibility in industry. If industry is wise, it will exploit that urge and develop it, and so break down the barriers between the management and the operative side in this country. Indeed, if that is done, a


victory will have been won not only for the war period, but for the rehabilitation of industry after the war and for avoiding many of the troubles that we might otherwise have to face. I urge that there should be a new and enlightened approach to these problems of management in order to make an effective contribution to our effort at this moment.
I have been asked about the concentration of industry. I will send my hon. Friend figures which will correct the impression which he has obtained, but it is too late to-night to quote any of them. I will try to show what has been done in that respect. There again, a new spirit is coming. I will cite an example of one great firm from which about 2,000 young women can be released. Discussion took place between the firm and my divisional controller, and the firm is going to carry on until I am ready to take those young women one by one, two by two or by dozens, and transfer them in an orderly way. That is a great, patriotic and wise thing to do. The employer in that great establishment says, '' For the rest of the war I will retain every woman who is not of the correct physical standard for your factories, and I will take everyone who falls ill and finds that she cannot carry through. I will carry on the best I can, and I will give you the best of my staff for your great factories." Let that spirit and example imbue others throughout the country. In another case, a firm saw the men, who were needed to return to the mines, gave them a gratuity and wished them well. It told them that if they were not wanted, they could come back again. It is not only the Ministry of Labour that can do this transferring. I want to get a co-operative will between employers and everybody in the country, to facilitate the work of the officials of my Ministry, of whom the State has a right to be proud. The officials of the Ministry of Labour have made no mean contribution to the war effort and to the handling of the tremendous task which the Government impose upon us.
If I might summarise, I would put the matter in a few simple words. I conceived it my duty to keep the following objectives in mind: the complete organisation of labour for the service of the State; transference of labour on a short-term policy to meet immediate needs; building-

up of reserves by registration and otherwise for a long-term policy. I would say to the hon. Member for Kidderminster that I want to have more than a 25 per cent. capacity in the kitty all the time, so that when the last emergencies have to be met, there is a last reserve of production to carry them through. Therefore, I want to keep that registration in reserve, in advance of the defence and productive plans, so as to avoid waiting for supplies. I want to establish such conditions of employment as will give a sense of justice, remove grievances and prevent disputes, I want to prevent labour turnover, and to provide the most effective methods of transfer, to establish arbitration for the settlement of differences, and to devise such conditions as will preserve the morale of our people and see this conflict through.
All that is based on the conception that this war is a people's war. I believe, and I know from the information that comes to me, that the policy that has been applied to labour in this country during this war, with great care and design, has produced general satisfaction among the people of Britain. It has brought an amazing response in feeling and confidence from the working masses of the United States, and has represented no mean contribution to shaping public opinion there, which is reflected in their attitude towards this country. It has meant a great deal to the Russian masses, and has countered the belief in their minds that this was an Imperialist war. It has brought hope to millions in Europe, who, seeing the approach we have made to industrial problems during this last year, see that we are not merely fighting to overthrow Hitler, but that Britain is going to take her place again in the vanguard of social and economic progress; that we are striving not merely to preserve liberty, but to utilise all that it means to lay the foundation of a more just age in the upward progress of civilisation. That is the great thing which has emerged from this struggle and which has inspired our inner workings. We declare that we will carry on to the bitter end to remove the Nazi regime and its spirit of aggression and domination; we will weave into the fabric of society the spirit of freedom and equality for all. Where we have to give, we will give generously; where we have to


win, we will win and make our victory secure for future generations to enjoy.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: I think it is rather unfortunate that when this Debate was originated a fortnight ago, it was held to be out of Order to discuss any questions of labour in connection with production. However, that embargo has now been removed, and I should like the Committee to bear in mind that we in Parliament are not concerned with the faults or follies of individual firms or of individual workmen. I think, if I may say so, that far too much attention has been paid during this Debate to that side of the question, which does not really concern Parliament. What concerns Parliament are Ministers' faults, and those troubles in industry and failures of production which have been due in any way to mistakes on the part of the Ministers concerned. In the previous Debate I endeavoured to point out that the last Minister of Aircraft Production had made certain very grave mistakes, mistakes in many cases inherited from his predecessors, and by giving an example of one omission on their part, I was able to get a promise from the new Minister that it should be made good. I refer to the setting-up of a technical corps in order to control the design of aircraft.
When we came to the question of labour, which, admittedly—because it is no use shutting our eyes to the fact—is in a most unsatisfactory state in this country at the present time, it was ruled out of Order. I began to put forward a view which it was impossible to enlarge upon owing to that Ruling of the Chair. What upset the Minister of Labour was my quoting something which had been said to me by an official of the A.E.U., who remarked that there was a certain feeling against unskilled labourers. That I described as snobbery, for snobbery it is, although I justified it to some extent as being based on pride in craftsmanship. There was a great cry from above the Gangway—

Mr. A. Bevan: The hon. Member did not call it snobbishness then.

Mr. Hopkinson: I did, and if the Committee insist upon it, I will quote my actual words. I said:
It was unwise to put in charge of the whole labour force of this country a man who,

the craftsmen say, is only an unskilled labourer after all. Members may think that the craftsman is a snob. So he is, but there is something more than snobbery in his resentment at being dominated by the unskilled labourer. Pride in craftsmanship may be allied to snobbery, but it is one of the most valuable things we have got in this country." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1941; col. 241, Vol. 373.]

Mr. Bevan: You did not yourself describe it as snobbishness..

Mr. Hopkinson: I said that the man was a snob. What more the hon. Member wants than that, I do not know.

Mr. Bevan: You did not say that.

Mr. Hopkinson: When hon. Members state what is not quite correct, and will not be convinced when they get the actual quotation, I cannot do more. I said—

Members may think that the craftsman is a snob.
I added—"So he is.

Mr. Bevan: You did not say that before.

Mr. Hopkinson: I have no wish to continue this topic. There were various other points of the labour situation which I wish to bring to the notice of the Committee with a view to getting them put right. From the very start the A.E.U. has been mishandled by successive Governments. To go right back to the summer of 1938, when times were becoming critical, it will be remembered that the then Prime Minister sent for the heads of the T.U.C., and told them candidly the state of affairs and asked for their assistance. But the heads of the A.E.U. were told to see the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. Everyone who understands the A.E.U. knows that the A.E.U. and the T.U.C. have been at loggerheads from time immemorial. Taking the T.U.C. to the Prime Minister and the A.E.U. to the Minister for the Coordination of Defence, started the whole thing wrong. That is the sort of thing we are entitled to criticise the Government for doing. In the case of the Minister of Labour himself—and I am sorry to see he is not here—members of the A.E.U. criticise him personally and his actions in the past, particularly his actions in respect of the A.E.U. The A.E.U. know that the right


hon. Gentleman has been a notorious poacher, and, therefore, he is not persona grata with the A.E.U. The opinion of the A.E.U. ought to be regarded in these days, for they are the key to the whole situation. I hope I have made it clear that what I wanted to put forward to the Committee, and what I now put forward, is simply what a certain number of perfectly faithful and experienced trade unionists are saying. I do not presume to say whether they are right or not; but, as a matter of practical politics, it is desirable that the views of a very important class in the country should be put before the Committee and before the Government.
To refer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, there was one passage on which I think I can correct him from experience. That was where he said that the discipline of "sacking" was unnecessary in industry. There, of course, he was just talking nonsense. The Committee knows that for the last 15 years the whole of the profits of my firm have gone to the men I employ. But if the discipline that can be imposed by sacking could not have been used in normal circumstances, there would never have been any profits for the men to take. That sort of talk does immense harm. The Essential Work Order, as other Members have said, is wrecking the discipline of industry. Everyone knows that, in the engineering trade particularly, the majority of the men are trustworthy. But, of course, as in every other section, not even excepting the War Cabinet itself, there are people whom you cannot trust, and without discipline you get nothing out of them. What is so futile in these Debates is for hon. Members above the Gangway to get up and talk as if there were nobody on an income of less than £10,000 a year who was deficient in industry or in patriotism. There are just as many loafers in the lower ranks of industry as at the very top—and I cannot say worse than that. I shall go on as I am doing if, after mature consideration, I come to the conclusion that there are Ministers of the Crown who are really a danger to the country in its present position. In that case, I shall never scruple to get up here, no matter what sort of row is kicked up above the Gangway, and endeavour to get those Ministers replaced by people who will not wreck industry, as the Minister of Labour is doing to-day.

Sir Waldron Smithers: I know it is unpopular to speak at this late hour, but I have been here all day, and there is one point I wish to make. It is a point which has hardly been mentioned all through the Debate, but I was delighted to hear the Minister, in that fine peroration, talking about assisting the morale of the people. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) gave a remarkable example of team spirit when he described how he once rode in a gun team. Unless we mobilise and unite spiritual and moral forces with the same faith and vision as we are mobilising the Navy, the Air Force, the Army and industry, we shall be fighting with one hand tied behind our back. Did hon. Members hear Mr.Harry Hopkins in his brilliant broadcast on Sunday night? After describing all the material articles sent to this country, he added a remarkable sentence. He said:
The biggest job the President has done has been to alter the industrial state of mind. It is the mind we have that makes the people we are.
Hitler uses propaganda as a very powerful weapon, and we must forge a stronger weapon than his if we are to overcome his propaganda. Our propaganda lacks vision and imagination. This is no ordinary war; it is a war between good and evil, between the Cross and the Swastika. The occupied countries of Europe were not beaten so much on the field of battle or in the field of production; they were defeated morally, and the reason why the Russians are doing so valiantly now is because Hitler has not been able to break their morale.

The Chairman: That does not arise out of the Vote before the Committee to-day.

Sir W. Smithers: We must do all we can to maintain the morale of our people and so get maximum production. To put it at the lowest, do the people of this country realise that if we lose this war there will be no wages and no trade unions and that we shall all be slaves?

Mr. Maxton: And no Stock Exchange.

Sir W. Smithers: Think of the effect on morale of the "V" campaign, which has been electrical in its—

The Chairman: I am sorry, but I must remind the hon. Member that that is outside to-day's Vote.

Sir W. Smithers: Then I will say no more, except that I am sorry it is not recognised that the maintenance of the morale of our people has the biggest effect on the production of armaments.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.— [Mr. Grimston.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.